Mass Eviction—San Jose’s Largest—to Displace 670 People

Growing up in New Orleans, where roof-stripping squalls are a matter of course, Tyrone Lockett learned how the force of nature could render anyone a nomad. When Hurricane Katrina tore through frail levees in 2005, he watched the devastation from afar as his family lost everything to the floodwater fury.

“Mother Nature comes calling and takes what she will,” says Lockett, who settled in San Jose a year before the Loma Prieta earthquake shattered the cityscape.

But it was another force entirely that prompted the 49-year-old private school chef and his stroke-stricken wife to leave their longtime home: Silicon Valley’s ascendant economy, which turned his rent-controlled apartment into a goldmine.

Lockett recently moved out of his two-bedroom flat at The Reserve, a 216-unit west San Jose complex slated for the wrecking ball to make way for a market-rate replacement with 640 units and 8,000 square feet of shops and restaurants. It’s the kind of dense, urban architecture the state says cities need to fix the housing shortage and drive down living costs.

Nowhere is that problem more pronounced right now than at The Reserve, where some 670 residents have less than a year to get out. By the city’s count, it appears to be the largest eviction in Silicon Valley history—possibly the state’s—and it caught San Jose completely off guard.

For context, consider that San Francisco called a drawn-out eviction of 100 tenants from 86 rent-controlled units the largest in the city’s history. At The Reserve, nearly seven times as many people got the boot with far less notice.

To make matters worse, the South Bay city of a million has no policy on the books to help tenants pay for the forced move. This was never supposed to happen, says Randi Kinman, who chairs the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s policy advisory subcommittee, a regional planning body. Evicting 600-plus people from rent-controlled units conflicts with state-set goals to maintain housing stock for all income levels.

“We kind of brush off displacement from four units here or five units there,” Kinman says. “But at no point has there been any idea that we would see this scale of displacement or that it would remove this many rent-controlled units. When I brought this up at our meeting two months ago, people wanted to know how could this possibly be happening? Everybody just kind of looked at each other and said, ‘Holy smokes.’”

The project’s developer, Greystar Real Estate Partners, won city approval months ago and gave residents until next spring to clear out of the 45-year-old complex. Tenants challenged the permit, arguing that the environmental review wrongfully deemed the displacement a “less than significant impact” and that scores of them could become homeless. They lost the appeal in a 7-3 City Council vote last week, despite support from council members Ash Kalra, Tam Nguyen and Magdalena Carrasco.

“Honestly, I don’t even know what we’ll do now,” says Tanisha Orozco, 24, a five-year tenant who’s seven months pregnant and lives in a two-bedroom unit with her husband, their toddler and her mom and dad. “We’ll probably have to move to Sacramento.”

Because no city law requires the landlord to compensate tenants for forced relocation, Greystar drummed up its own offer. According to the latest version, only households making less than 80 percent of the region’s median income qualify. The 40 or so units that meet the threshold stand to gain three months’ rent, a refunded security deposit and help from a “relocation specialist” to scout out a new place.

Tenants who are older than 62, disabled or have at least one child who lives with and depends on them get another $3,000. Greystar also urged people to apply at some of the 8,000 apartment units it owns across San Jose.

“This was voluntary on our part,” says Greystar lobbyist Erik Schoennauer. “We wanted to help people who needed it even though there’s no policy requiring us to do so.”

Tyrone Lockett left The Reserve, his home of 12 years, once he saw the writing on the wall. (Photo by Jennifer Wadsworth)

Tenants say they don’t necessarily oppose redevelopment—The Reserve is apparently teeming with cockroaches and silverfish, and rife with code enforcement and health violations. Several tenants say they lived with overflowing sewage, black mold and holes in the dry wall for days before Greystar sent someone to help.

But the relocation benefits, tenants argue, leave most of them out and doesn’t come close to covering the cost of uprooting hundreds of people, many of whom live on fixed incomes and can’t afford market-rate housing in San Jose. They say the bulk of Greystar’s other apartments fall outside their price range. A 386-square-foot studio at The Reserve goes for up to $1,745 a month. Tenants implored the city and Greystar to offer more money to people to no avail.

“I really don’t characterize this as a negotiation,” Schoennauer says. “I would characterize it as a dialogue. We’re volunteering to do this.”

Councilman Chappie Jones, whose district encompasses the South Winchester Boulevard apartment complex, says he can’t do much to help The Reserve tenants. But he says their plight will inform future policy.

“One of the things that we learned from this is that we don’t have any rules to go by for these situations,” Jones says. “I was surprised to learn that. I expected something. That’s why I proposed a displacement ordinance. We’re in the eye of the storm here when it comes to issues of development and displacement.”

San Jose’s housing staff expects to bring a relocation compensation policy proposal back to the council this fall. That’s too late for tenants at The Reserve, who will all enter a rental market with a dearth of affordable housing and a 3-percent vacancy rate.

“Our life revolves around our son, who starts high school this year,” says Angel Milano, a 56-year-old electrical engineer who pays $2,200 a month for a two-bedroom apartment at The Reserve. “It’s going to be hard finding a place by his school. We’ll do what we can.”

Some of Milano’s neighbors expect to move to the Central Valley, pulling their kids out of school and away from family. A nursing student says she’ll have to drop out to move. A single dad says he’ll have to dip into his daughter’s college fund for what will be his sixth move in five years.

“There goes the down payment we were saving for,” says Brandie Locke, 30, who moved into her first-story unit at The Reserve five years ago in the hope that the rent-control cap would help her and her husband save to buy a home. “You have to put your life on hold.”

Sandy Perry, head of Santa Clara County’s Affordable Housing Network, says the city made a mistake in arguing that simply replacing The Reserve’s 216 units with 650 new ones will offset displacement by creating more homes.

“They deny that any real displacement will take place,” Perry says. “Nothing could be further from the truth. When people can’t find a comparable apartment to rent, they don’t disappear into thin air. They relocate to outlying areas and commute for hours. Or they become homeless.”

Perry criticized San Jose’s mayor and council for not doing more to help. When more than 400 people faced eviction at Buena Vista mobile home park in Palo Alto, he says, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian led a charge with other agencies that raised $45 million to buy the property and stave off redevelopment. When 100 people lost their home to a fire that torched Twin Pines Manor Apartments in Sunnyvale, the county, the city and a host of nonprofits raised money to find them shelter.

“Why is nobody championing people at The Reserve?” Perry wonders.

Jennifer Loving, executive director of Destination: Home, says the city needs to think about how to prevent displacement if it’s serious about ending homelessness.

“Prevention should be a huge part of the discussion,” she says. “When decisions are made at the policy level, there’s a human cost we have to consider.”

San Jose has provisions for tree displacement but nothing about displaced people, Kinman says. It’s a glaring oversight that’s made a tough situation disastrous, she says, predicting that the crisis at The Reserve will reverberate across the entire region.

“We want more housing and we want this development,” she says. “We just can’t ignore the impacts of the people who already live there. You can’t just count the numbers and say, ‘Well there’s a net gain here.’ If that were the case, we could tear down all the low-income housing and all the rent-controlled housing to make way for more units. But it doesn’t work that way. That destroys people’s lives.”

Lockett likens the lack of policy to account for mass eviction to the defective flood walls that turned Hurricane Katrina into the biggest manmade disaster in the nation’s history.

“This is our broken levee,” he says.

Brandie Locke says she only found out about Greystar's redevelopment plans from signs on the edge of the property.

209 Comments

First, book your moving truck or a cargo van @ http://www.uhaul.com (they have low decks and wide ramps for easy loading as well as gentle-ride suspension which ensures a smooth ride to your desired destination).

Are you serious???? People should not have to commute 100+ to their jobs! The city needs to focus on affordable housing for the members of it’s community. It’s not possible for everyone to just to relocate. Such a ridiculous suggestion. Seriously, you’re not being helpful.

Who? Well, It’ll be the same folks that used to do it in the past: part-time teenagers.

On one hand I get my pizza, groceries and “lazy ass door dash” while at the same time, they get a wider perspective on life, feeling of empowerment, get to learn some new skills, take on responsibilities and appreciate the value of their earnings.

The harsh reality is that not everyone can afford to live in Santa Clara County. They might want to but they can’t afford it. The city continues to take on the unrealistic approach that they will be able to use tax dollars to solve the problem. You have less than two hundred units and nearly seven hundred people in flats & one room apartments. Guess what? The overcrowding in those apartments indicates the families and tenants are already priced out of Santa Clara County! Adults are doing jobs that should be teenager jobs and they’re doing them as their “careers”. The answer for making bad decisions about their future (schools, trades, work experience) is to demand a higher and higher minimum wage and mandated low income housing costs. All at the expense of the folks who made better choices and pay larger share of taxes. Stop the insanity! Let folks relocate. Doesn’t our nation have a long history of immigrants and development of our great nation came because of courageous migrants. No person living in this country has an absolute right to live in a community outside of their means at the expense of taxpayers!!! Free public schools exist in every single county and city across this nation. Your children won’t suffer, they’ll maybe prosper in a place aligned with your income level.

C.D. Costa- College students are among the highest of homeless here. So I guess you think they are making bad life choices too. Get real.

Many seniors living here helped built this City into what it is, and should not be booted out into the streets. Hundreds bought mobile homes thinking they could retire and die here. The land is being bought from under them and they are being displaced due to greed.

Our Veterans served this country when others wouldn’t, and deserve respect and a roof over their heads.

People with disabilities didn’t choose to be stuck on a fixed income in a valley that has gone crazy.

If the best you can do is quack about relocating somewhere else then you are no different than some of the heartless, uneducated trolls on here. Why don’t you take your ignorant opinions elsewhere?

“College students are among the highest of homeless here.” Now we’re making stuff up, aren’t we?

“Hundreds bought mobile homes thinking they could retire and die here.” So am I now supposed to subsidize seniors who made ill-advised real estate purchases in the past?!?

“Our Veterans served this country when others wouldn’t, and deserve respect and a roof over their heads.” Does this include Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills? How about Atherton?

“People with disabilities didn’t choose to be stuck on a fixed income in a valley that has gone crazy.” That’s an impossible feat to accomplish in SV and most of these folks are smarter than you think – they’re moving and/or have already moved on based on the affordability of their residency.

In conclusion, Milton Friedman predicted things like this would happen some 35 years ago:

Let me get this straight you think people with different opinions than yours should take comments else where but people who can’t afford to live in a community without the continual and never ending tax dollar subsidy should stay.

There’s someone quacking but it’s not me.

None of what you said in the first part is untrue or would I disagree with but it still doesn’t change the fact that there are simply not enough local tax dollars to pay folks to live here regardless if they are elderly, veterans or disabled. Fixed income in one of the highest market rate housing areas doesn’t mix. That’s not anything to be ashamed of but there is a solution. They can get bleeding heart liberals in a tizzy and whine and complain about what the government (tax dollars) should be doing to help them or they can solve the problem and go to an area where their fixed income would allow them to live in dignity. Corporate greed aside, too many people live outside their means for far too long then expect a bailout. It is unsustainable.

Your explanation of the future is simply unsustainable. Build up, push lower income folks out because that’s how the world works, and those people have nice new abodes elsewhere. Fine fairy tale, but I will grant you that it’s the way San Jose is going and if you have the perverse pleasure of being a resident here, I hope you appreciate the future of this shit town. People with the wealth to stay here want little to do with this overgrown business park beyond their day job.

People don’t have to commute 100+ miles to their jobs, just move closer to your work. And if you can’t afford to live where you work, then you move where you can afford it. Its called life planning Stephanie; you know, thinking ahead for the future instead of sitting on your ass. One day when you grow up you will begin to realize that the world doesn’t owe you diddly squat.

It’s not the responsibility of the city to house you. If you cannot afford it here, quit your job and move to a cheaper place.

Everyday, thousands of illegal aliens from south of the border pack up, ride the rails and cross the desert to come here risking their lives to sneak in. If illegal aliens can move themselves thousands of miles, how hard is it for you to pack you stuff and move 100 miles?

If you still want to stay here, that’s alright by me. Just pay up like the rest of us. Nobody is entitled to live here.

Do not believe for one second that the Mayor and the City Council did not know that by approving this project that 672 people would be displaced. It was in the EIR and they were called “less than significant impact”. I attended SEVEN Winchester Advisory Group meetings and brought up displacement and the possibilities at every meeting. I attending SIX land-use general plan 4 year review meetings in which I brought up that 672 people living here would be displaced along with 47 units at Santana Row. I spoke at length by telephone to the hearing officer in the planning department that would give the final go ahead on the permit. Senior Attorney Diana Castilla wrote a public comment letter to the planning department asking them to evaluate how this mass displacement would impact the residents being displaced (will they find comparable housing elsewhere?…no). This letter was IGNORED by the planning department. I sent over 20 emails to the city attorney, city manager, mayor, council, ANYONE that would hear me that we must make sure we do not CREATE MORE HOMELESS. I, along with MANY others have been screaming that this project did not account for REAL PEOPLE that are losing their homes!

During the rent control hearing meetings, landlords took a beating because they were being accused of evicting people out of homes in order to get more rent money from the next person. AND OUR CITY NOW TURNS OUT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVICTING THE MOST PEOPLE IN OUR CITY THAT CURRENTLY HAVE ADEQUATE HOUSING!

Believe me, our entire Envision 2040 plan is based on the demolishing of older apartment complexes in order to build high-density housing. This land-use document outlines VERY clearly that this is our growth plan. And Mr. Erik Schonenaurr knows it well…he was appointed to be on the land-use task force by Mayor Liccardo and he knows exactly where (and has already) targeted currently affordable and existing units to be demolished in favor of the big money developers he represents. Fine, build. I’m not opposed. I’m opposed to the city making sure that they relocate the birds in the nests of the trees but not even thinking that actual human beings should be relocated as well!

Greystar is a billion dollar company that screws has been screwing over tenants across the US. (I do not exaggerate, they are being sued constantly). They could have successfully figured out a way with all of their billions to help out these displaced tenants during the WORST housing crisis in San Jose’s history. No where to go, vacancy rates high and costs over the moon and we allow Greystar to kick out our city’s service workers without giving a crap. This project is a windfall for Greystar and they could be assisting ALL residents in a meaningful way.

Since they will not: Our city should. We SHOULD use tax payer dollars to relocate them. If you don’t want to pay up, then I suggest you fight the general plan which is a displacement policy. We as a city are actually ASKING and INVITING corporations to buy these places and redevelop them. Doesn’t the person that does the inviting usually pay?

Leadership means you can plan ahead. Our city has been talking about redeveloping existing properties since 2008 and up zoned certain parcels with land-use designation to SPUR on this redevelopment. When they did that, they should have had the foresight to know they would displace hundreds of people at a time. They knew this was coming and did nothing at the policy level to prepare for this.

It will take two years to add 400 more units (all market rate near Santana Row…$4000 and up) meanwhile we lose 216 somewhat affordable units that people were already living in during the worst housing crisis we’ve seen. Nothing like taking one step forward and two steps back.

> Do not believe for one second that the Mayor and the City Council did not know that by approving this project that 672 people would be displaced. It was in the EIR and they were called “less than significant impact”.

Bravo Jill! What really baffles me is the same city council squashed the plan for high density housing closer to CalTrain(and eventually BART) and lightrail. They killed the deal to transform OC McDonald/Mel Cottons into 200 units with this sort of logic (http://www.mercurynews.com/scott-herhold/ci_28093441/san-jose-shouldnt-lose-its-commercial-land). So it’s okay to stuff more consumers into the Santana Row area, but mixed use of housing/retail is beyond their imagination. I guess it has to be spelled out more specifically to them. HEY you know all the Apple employees that will be working at the new North San Jose campus? They could live mid-town and take light rail to work. MIND BLOWN!!!

There is plenty of high density housing already built, being built, and planned to be built in Midtown. The DelMonte cannery is all five story tower blocks, more five story tower blocks are being built on the canvas store/nursery site across from Sam’s Downtown Feed, and Sam himself has been surprised to learn that his historic feed store is listed as “possible brewpub.”

Thanks Jill….as you well know WE resident Mobile Home owners are next on the “displacement” hit list…stating with Winchester Ranch….get ready to watch the courageous Chappie do still more disingenuous corporate pandering

Yes, he knew as did the Mayor. I brought it up at EVERY meeting Chappie was at regarding the Winchester Urban Village Plan. Also, the Mayor was asked directly by one of the members of the community, “What is San Jose’s displacement policy?” Mayor Liccardo answered simply, “there is no displacement policy”. That was it. Nothing more. And he refused to call on me when I had my hand up. I wanted him to extrapolate a bit on why exactly Greystar was giving the city a “voluntary gift” of 2.4 million dollars for traffic mitigation, but not one dime for any of the residents to get a U-haul to move their stuff out of town. Chappie knew, the Mayor knew. It’s part of the plan.

No. They are not bothered by the displacement. If they had been bothered at all, they would have brought up the 672 people during the planning process and simply asked our housing department if there was anywhere they could go. Instead, the birds in the trees and their eggs inside were carefully planned for. They will be carefully relocated or the project will “wait” until the little birds emerge from their eggs and can fly away successfully. If only the Mayor cared about the humans as much as he cares about the birds.

Well that’s a very rational POV and people will eventually follow suit. They have to. San Jose has nothing at all going for it except technology… oh wait! There are orchards, right? Anyway few people give two shakes of a lambs tail about this city including the city council.

Comparing the fallout from Hurricane Katrina to 700 people in SJ needing to relocate within the next year is incredibly asinine. There were almost 1,000 people who died in that disaster and 600k+ households displaced.

No, it’s not. There had been issues with the levee and city leaders had been told for years it might not hold. They also had been warned that draining the wetlands would increase flooding. But, who cares about proactively protecting poor, largely minority people? They also knew these same people didn’t have the means to evacuate and they were left to fend for themselves. The survivors of Katrina have been banished to states all over the U.S. and very few have been able to return home.

There were voices warning that One Bay Area (and it’s spawn, Urban Villages) would, via infilling (tearing down existing inhabited structures to build new ones), cause mass displacement. People in San Jose have been calling for an Ellis Act for years. Residents have been left to fend for themselves, with almost none qualifying for the paltry displacement offer. These largely low income, immigrant folks have been scattered as far away as San Diego.

Yes, Plan Bay Area and their spawn Urban Villages are just getting started with mass displacement. Please – we need every resident of San Jose and especially Reserve tenants being evicted, to speak your mind at the planning meeting about Plan Bay Area. Go out and speak against Priority Development Area’s and the harm they have caused:

Plan Bay Area 2040 Comment Session Slated for July 8

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) invite public comments at a joint meeting on Friday, July 8.

Representatives with community-based organizations will also share key findings from their outreach in low-income communities and communities of color. Meeting details are as follows:

It is ridiculous because in New Orleans the problem wasn’t simply poor levees it was the entire city was build below sea level. It was a disaster waiting to happen And after the disaster what did they do? Not update levees immediately but rebuild the city still below sea level. Madness.

So San Jose has the same situation. People can’t afford to live her and it is unrealistic to commute 100+ miles. SO MOVE SOME PLACE ELSE. Not everyone can live in Silicon Valley. You might like the weather and the location but you simply cannot afford it and tax payers should not be continually on the hook

Destroy the mom and pop rental property owner and see this happen over and over. Grandma can’t afford to do this, but a corporation can. Keep calling for tighter rent control and give these developers cheap property to tear down to build larger projects. All you bleeding hearts, this is the future you are working so hard to create.

Don’t try and engender sympathy for mom and pop landlords when your lobby, the California Apartment Association (CAA) is your NRA. Same tactics, same spending, same shenanigans.

Us “bleeding hearts” might have more common ground with you than you think when it comes to Urban Villages, but as long as the CAA speaks for you, there will be the same stalemate the NRA has created. And that’s a shame.

Every time I read one of you mention how rent-control is the such an evil, I have to wonder if you are benefitting from “property tax control ” under prop 13. Just as single family home owners and owners of commercial properties were protected and stabilized under prop 13 and had a form of “tax control”, so too do tenants need some form of rent control. These older apartment complexes that are under rent control are also the same ones that benefitted for decades under “property tax control” and some still do.

Why do the wealthy among us have laws that protect them and stabilize their life but you can’t wrap your mind around the rest of us needing stable lives as well? Why do “owners” have stable use of land while renters always pay the price and must suffer with constant price hikes and evictions?

I say down with “property tax control”! Get those seniors out of their “tax controlled” properties! As you can imagine….I’m not for that at all. I’m so grateful for ANY law that can STABILIZE HOUSING and allow all people to live life without needing to make a profit off the backs of all of us that need a roof over our head!

Jill, think again about what you just proposed re. the “property tax control”, it’s not that hard, really.

If you had applied an ounce of deductive reasoning, which includes the premise of the FREE MARKET society we live in, the repeal of Prop 13 would compel your imaginary “wealthy among us” to simply cash out and sell their properties to the likes of Greystar and thus accelerate the re-development of older apartment complexes into market-rate based housing.

Well, actually I am for the repeal of Prop 13 for single family homes where the primary owner dies and then the inherited children rather than selling it or living in it, turn the home into a rental unit (under an LLC) and avoid paying property taxes and rent it out and use the home as a personal ATM. Then yes I am for repealing prop 13 for that. But other than that, I think Prop 13 has stabilized housing for 1000’s of people – especially seniors like my Dad.

In a competitive “free market economy”, things work themselves out for the greater good of the greatest number.

In a bureaucratically planned economy, some bureaucrat somewhere makes a conscious decision to screw someone somewhere and benefit someone else.

You are experiencing the painful, arbitrary unfairness of government planned housing “policies”.

You could hope for a return to a more “free market” housing environment in which case your housing situation might improve somewhat.

Or, you could hope for the housing planning bureaucrats to make different decisions on who to screw, and hope that you get screwed less. I would rate the chances of this happening as zero, zilch, nil, nada. If you think bureaucrats are going to do something nice for you because you deserve something nice, you don’t know bureaucrats.

Once the bureaucrats have screwed someone, the bureaucrats are happy if they stay screwed, so they can move on and screw someone else.

Some of us are against rent control and would love it if Prop 13 tax control went away too! Stabilized housing is a myth. Too many people live outside their means. Not just for everyday items but face the reality that you cannot afford to live in silicon valley. Nothing wrong with that, move to a more affordable state or community. I hope folks are using this as a lesson for their kid’s that they need to make better choices in high school and get a good education and go to college or trade school and make enough money to sustain the lifestyle you want. Flunking out of HS and life and getting a minimum wage job and then expecting tax payers to subsidize your poor choices is criminal!

We obviously disagree. My neighborhood is full of teachers, police, firefighters, nurses, etc all homeowners in a typical SJ neighborhood. Most are two income families and many drive older cars, forego exotic vacations, don’t splurge on $5 coffees twice a day or non-essentials like pedicures & manicures, lawn service or housekeepers. Ordinary folks somehow got it into their heads that they should lease luxury cars for their teenagers at nearly $1000 a month including insurance, have waitstaff of house cleaners, gardeners etc. instead of doing the work themselves. People who are priced out, can’t come up with that big down payment for a home should take stock of how they spend and waste money they do have. They should take stock of what career choices they’ve made. I am tired of paying thousands of dollars in extra bond tacked on my property tax bill for folks who don’t manage their own money and lifestyle well. Don’t punish those that manage to afford housing, don’t reward those that insist on living outside their means. If your income is less than $75,000 annually in Santa Clara County chances are you are priced out of this area and should seriously consider relocating. If you’re making less than $50,000 you are a burden to the collective tax payers in the county. The responsible thing to do if you cannot lower your expenses is to relocate. Kathleen, why do you find that hard truth so offensive? Sometimes the real truth is you can’t afford it. San Jose Inside reports the story of a household of four adults and a few kids who are in subsidized small apartments who were given a years notice about the need to relocate. Yet they are stunned and they have no plan and no place to go. Too many people are tired of carrying other people’s burden.

“LOL! Haven’t you been educating yourself on the facts? Obviously not!”

That’s called ‘projection': imputing your own faults onto others. A basic econ education would go a long way to help Kathleen and others like her understand reality.

It’s predictable that KF would suggest eliminating Prop. 13. Let me explain for her exactly what would happen: property taxes would skyrocket, because government kleptocrats would suddenly be freed from its restrictions. Then what?

Answer: those higher taxes would be passed on to tenants, thus jacking up their rents even more — exactly the opposite of what Kathleen is trying to avoid in her unthinking, emotional jealousy of one of the very few laws protecting citizens from rapacious government bureaucrats. She doesn’t understand that Prop 13 protects tenants, too.

Then of course what others said would happen would become a reality. Rents would rise more than they would otherwise. The same kleptocrats that pushed up property taxes would scurry to avoid the blame for what they and folks like Kathleen caused, and try to make property owners pay the higher taxes without passing on the costs.

Can’t be done. The Constitution doesn’t allow the taking of property without just compensation, so those costs would be recovered from tenants in the form of higher rents. The net result would be exactly the opposite of what the do-gooders intended.

The best answer is to provide more housing. That means high rise complexes with 100+ units per acre, instead of the current 12 – 24. But the enviro/green contingent would have a conniption fit because they oppose high density housing. (Thanx to Kirk Vartan and his ilk. They want stupid, inefficient, and unnecessary “urban farms” instead of more housing.)

Earth to Kathleen: people are no more ‘entitled’ to live here than they are entitled to live on Santa Monica beach if they can’t afford it. Taxpayers have been sheared like sheep to try and get around that fact of life.

You can tell who the dreamers are here; they’re the folks who ‘wish’ things were different; the folks who always demonize the providers of housing, when the real demon is government. Their unworkable pie in the sky ‘solutions’, and their incessant complaints never accomplish anything. The market does what’s necessary, with or without self-serving bureaucrats, or ‘activists’ who almost always make things worse.

The one solution that works for everyone has been repeatedly suggested: move if you can’t afford to live here. What’s so hard to understand about that? You can’t afford a beach house in Santa Monica, either. Should taxpayers pay for that, too?

Your life is ten times better than any King or Queen’s life was only a few hundred years ago. It’s only your attitude that’s causing you problems. You just need an attitude adjustment, and the real world is giving you one whether you like it or not.

So you can complain, or you can suck it up and make the best choice under the circumstances. Winners do the latter. The real world takes care of the former. Either way, it will all get sorted out, and complaining about the ‘evil landlords’ won’t make a bit of difference.

It’s ok. LEt the prices go up and up. Eventually, all the folks at Google and Apple will have to clean up their own shit, and wait their own tables, OR pay people what they need in order to live there to work there. The mkt will sort itself out.

I have to say as a single person who earns right around the $50,000 mark I generally agree with C.D. Costa’s assessment. I live in a rent controlled studio with a merciful landlord who hasn’t raised the rent as much as they could have. But I’m not living in denial. I know there’s a good chance it won’t last forever. Even with the new cap of 5% rent increases, 4 or 5 years of successive rent increases at that rate would push me out. The thing is….you simply must look ahead to see if Silicon Valley is truly affordable for you long term. None of us has a crystal ball, but you can’t just think month to month or even year to year. You have to have a viable long term plan. After nearly 20 years of healthy savings (and in 8.5 of those years I was a room renter so I could maintain that healthy savings rate), my eyes are open to the fact that I may be forced out of Silicon Valley some day. It sucks. But thanks to 20 years’ worth of healthy savings, I won’t be out on the street. It can be done. But you have to face the hard truths about your economic situation instead of living in denial and hoping things will just magically work out.

On another topic, I wanted to add that while I generally support the addition of high density housing to increase the housing supply in Silicon Valley, Plan Bay Area is the most anti-democratic urban planning document out there. It is actually part of United Nations Agenda 21….That’s right…our city planning in San Jose and many cities throughout the world is actually coming down from the United Nations. Each region has a different name for the plan….but the plan is identical and the real agenda behind it is to inventory and control all humans, all plants, all animals, all natural resources, all information, all land, etc….It is VERY Nazi-like. You can learn more about it here (the short version):

Mysticaltyger2009 is a rare breath of fresh air here. Kathleen, Jill, Diane, and others all talk about government subsidies for those who cannot afford to live in SV. There is no such thing as a GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY. All so-called government subsidies are tax dollars, which are taken from those who make good choices to support those who make bad choices. Don’t drop out of school, take advantage of the OPPORTUNITY America provides, instead of expecting government (which is really hardworking taxpayers) to bail them out of their poor choices and failure to take advantage of the opportunities offered here. But government does not bail them out. It’s the taxpayers like Mysticaltyger2009 who get stuck with the bill. At least once a week we hear about some hapless single mother of three or four who is left in a lurch. No one holds her responsible for having children she cannot afford to raise properly, and no one holds the fathers of those three or four who she won’t name responsible either. The biggest threat to the financial stability of this nation are breeding mothers and irresponsible fathers who keep bringing children into this world who have little or no chance of success. Every financial aid program for kids should REQUIRE naming the father, holding both father and mother equally responsible, and requiring them to attend family planning classes and to adhere strictly to what is taught there. Paying people for their irresponsible or lazy approaches to reproduction has to stop because it is unsustainable

mysticaltyger2009- I agree. I too have been a renter saving to leave California. Where I disagree with you is that no one should be forced out of the valley.

We have Police, Fire, Teachers, seniors, disabled, working poor who are vital to the service industry Veterans etc., who have a right to be here and are vitally needed. I know at least 75 people who commute over 100 miles each way to work here.

“I wanted to add that while I generally support the addition of high density housing to increase the housing supply in Silicon Valley, Plan Bay Area is the most anti-democratic urban planning document out there.”

I agree but I’ll go on step further, California is known to be one of the most business unfriendly states in the US! Just crazy why anyone would want to come here.

Thank you for the share and best of luck to you For however long you are able to stay in Silicon Valley I hope it is good to you. Thank you for being mature enough to make a responsible plan for your well being.

This generalization cannot be overlooked. I have a high school degree and I’m going to be fine in spite of displacement. Several people with higher education that myself are going to have to move out of San Jose to make ends meet. Reducing this discussion to “better choices” while young is not taking this discussion in a useful direction.

“Councilman Chappie Jones, whose district encompasses the South Winchester Boulevard apartment complex, says he can’t do much to help The Reserve tenants.” Such a crock. Jones votes in the 7-3 Council majority to deny an appeal of the project’s permit. The council’s logic: We need more (market-rate) housing, so we’re willing to demolish hundreds of low-income homes. Shameful.

Preach!
The council tends to follow the lead of the councilmember in whose district the issue is. Had Chappie LEAD on this issue, others would have supported him. Instead, he followed Greystar. And, while Chappie will tell others off the record that he feels bad or is trying to help, it’s not true. He could pull his support for the project. He could publicly state that he’d really like Greystar to provide a real displacement offer to the tenants. He could… but alas…

If this project didn’t happen, there would be people upset at the conditions. If an emergency happened there would be outrage that this “landlord” didn’t upgrade or redevelop. You can’t win. They’re making new housing, doubling or tripling what will be available. People should be cheering this project on.

JILL,
I Very Much admire your commitment to our well being, as a city.
I have stood behind my Anvil for 40 years, watching all of these sleaze bags come and go, in city Giverment. Good old boys!. However every so often a beautiful flower grows, such as you, and it make life so reassuring.
Many of these fat bellied wino’s passed their time, continue to go to the trough, for a daily feeding, and what the Good old Boy count on.
There is a place for you, in directing this city, into tomorrow.southbaybronze

Where do you propose that we build enough new housing to satisfy the needs of our entire city? By City policy we cannot build housing on Industrial property, commercial property, mobilehome property, on the hillsides, or in Coyote Valley. There is no vacant land. So, where are you going to build housing if not the intensification of existing residential land? This is simple mathematics. We need to build 100,000 additional homes by 2040 just to provide housing for the children and grandchildren of existing San Jose residents. Not building the housing will result in the displacement of even more lower income people. Of course, we must also invest in affordable house and implement a meaningful displacement policy.

Start by getting surrounding cities to build their OWN fair share of housing instead of dumping it on San Jose like they have been for decades now. These cities have tons of tax revenue because they bring in businesses instead of building housing. They need to HOUSE their own employees!

Build housing over the top of businesses like they do in Europe. Less traffic, less congestion, and a lot more convenient!

Get these big companies who are getting far more tax breaks than housing developers to STOP bringing employees from outside of San Jose and get companies to train and hire locals.

Give housing developers the same big tax breaks this City gives businesses.

Building housing over businesses (European model) is exactly what the current project is. Mixed use housing and yet a whole lotta folks complaining.

Repeal Prop 13 and have all pay fair share taxes.

I dont support hotels & motels as rentals but a lot of folks need to sit down, shut up or move. Starting with NIMBYS and moving on to folks who made poor life choices and do not have jobs or resources to live here!

Erik Schoennauer- If you are the lobbyist mentioned in this article, you should be made to live in one of these dumps yourself. Taking hard earned rent money from people for a roach infested apartment with ALL of these other Civil Code violations is really shameful and disgusting.

The claims about Code violations are factually untrue. The City’s Code Enforcement inspectors have recently been at the property and found no violations. Of course, over time any large apartment complex may have a periodic problem with bug and rodent complaints. But, the records show that any complaints have been followed up and fixed.

@kathlynn flynn: Oh, it’s the same Erik. The tenants have lived with raw sewage repeatedly coming through the sinks, but found it was quicker to deal with it amongst themselves than wait for management. Numerous units currently have black mold, roaches, rats, silverfish, etc. There are front doors that are made of hollow core, like your bedroom door, are not up to code, and could be kicked in by a child.

Oh, and the tenants received rent increases and brand spankin’ new water bills after they found out they were being evicted. Greystar was still renting units to tenants–without notifying them of the impending eviction–as late as last month.

Erik well knows that many other Bay Area cities have displacement policies and Greystar pays them, as high as $15k in San Francisco. But they prey on San Jose because they reap fantastic rewards for free. I’d be proud to go home at night to my comfortable children knowing that i just made scores of others homeless–tearing them away from their school, their friends, and any comfort they’ve ever known. But hey, it’s legal.

69wordnerd (@69wordnerd)- I hear you. I was a Tenant/Landlord Mediator and Arbitrator for the Housing Service Center for many years. I know the likes of Erik and companies like his very well. And they wonder why tenants are demanding stronger laws for renters.

The bottom line is that the market won’t stay like this for much longer. What goes up, must come down. I’ve seen this happen before. In a few years, these smug landlord will be begging for people move in with all kinds of “move in deals.”

People are moving out of here in droves, businesses are moving out of here, and eventually, we’ll be right back to where we started from, “Move in Specials! 1 month’s rent free!” LOL!

“Of course, we must also invest in affordable house and implement a meaningful displacement policy”.

Will the real Erik Schoennauer please stand up?

Men with no principles have no business putting forth empty statements about what “we” must also invest in. Who is “we”? Do you include yourself in the “we”? Is Greystar in the “we”. Or is that your way of saying, someone else come deal with the mess I help make…let the faith groups help the shelterless, let Ray Bramson and Jackie Morales-Ferrand from our housing department work on it, let the housing “activists” push on finding a path for affordable housing. Please Erik, don’t use the word “we” until you are willing to be a part of what “we” really means. You continue to represent corporations that sell our city’s housing on the global stock market and don’t give a damn real people actually living here. You and they apparently only care about their Real Estate Investment Trust Dividend check. You haven’t earned the right to be included in the “we” until you do something to help instead of harm.

If you give a damn about investing in affordable housing, drop your asinine contract representing Pulte Homes! You represent a corporation with the desire to scoop out the land from under the seniors at the Winchester Mobile Home park. That’s right…show me how motivated you are in investing in affordable housing and refuse to represent Pulte Homes any longer. Stop going after vulnerable seniors and existing residents already housed. Tell Pulte Homes to stuff it and find some other predator to represent them.

You’ve already displaced 672 people out of the Reserve. Please stop your torture of the residents at the Winchester Mobile Home park. Stop displacing people out of their homes. You’ve done enough damage.

240 acres in Santa Clara could have been used for housing but instead only a small number of apartments will be part of the massive City Place development. Santa Clara profits handsomely while San Jose will be asked to build the housing, requiring even more services San Jose cannot already afford.

Most of the 240 acres in Santa Clara could not be used for housing because the golf course where this development is slated to be built is actually built over Santa Clara’s old landfill. There are many government agencies involved in reviewing and approving this project precisely because it is slated to be built over an old landfill.

Erik, while the message from tenants of The Reserve varies a bit, I don’t think the overall response has ever been against new housing. The issue is with displacement. The city council and mayor pretty clearly admitted to a deficit of policy and competency. So much the better for development deals already approved. Hopefully this city will get a worthy displacement policy in place soon.

I lived there in 2013 and they had remodeled the interior and when I moved out in 2014.. right after they repainted the exterior and relandscaped the whole complex lol.. all the sudden they have decided to demolish the place? What a waste of money.

“The Reserve is apparently teeming with cockroaches and silverfish, and rife with code enforcement and health violations. Several tenants say they lived with overflowing sewage, black mold and holes in the dry wall for days before Greystar sent someone to help.”

How in the hell was that allowed to happen? Those are ALL Civil Code violations!

Did Code Enforcement go out there and fine them? If not WHY not?

Why didn’t these tenants get rent reductions through the City’s Mediation/Arbitration Program?

Tenants should have gotten together and sued the crap out of them for Habitability Violations!

Given how they ran this property, why on earth would the City allow or support them building more housing? My God, unbelievable!

sjoutsidethebubble – Feel free to go live there and advise these tenants on the joy of living in a roach infested, overflowing sewage, black mold and holes in the dry wall for days before Greystar sent someone to help.”

And yes, State Law does require landlords to keep their rentals up to code.

sjoutsidethebubble- “If it’s not up to code, shut it down” Agreed. So why didn’t the City shut this dump down?

Kathleen how would the end result be different if the city had shut “this dump down” code violations rather than allow the property owner to re-develop it? Wouldn’t the 600+ tenants still be displaced and not be able to find an affordable housing without subsidy? Is it only the displacement that coincides with a profit for the property owner that upsets you because otherwise there shouldn’t be a difference

Who said that the outcome would be different? That’s not the point. The Reserve is going to be demolished and replaced with 600+ (arguably vacant) units. No question.

The question is how to take care of displaced residents. Is 3 month’s rent for those falling below 80% of AMI acceptable? Residents don’t seem to think so. Can you imagine what residents making below 80% of AMI as a household must be paying currently vs. what that would add up to for moving out?

Greystar probably spends more yearly dusting off the style guide for their corporate logo than they will offer to people who are literally being banished from San Jose and they’re just doing business while the San Jose City Council can do little more than express concern that they were caught unaware by the severity of displacement by redeveloping The Reserve.

Who are you? This is utter BS. Say what you will about the so called “progressive elite”, but it is quite a stretch to declare that they have a “shiny object” in “racism” and apparently this “progressive elite” is tending to the flock with said shiny object. If only things were so simple.

Are you seriously hiding behind bad city policy??? What a joke, any time in this process you could have fought harder and leveraged support from your fellow council members to issue a stay or something similar. How can you seriously say you are powerless – why run for city council if you’re going to be so useless?!!

Bring back Pete Constant – he rubbed a lot of D-1 residents the wrong way, but he least he was a coward hiding behind “bad city policy.”

Lastly, how can you even take yourself seriously – almost a thousand of your constituents/residents are being forced out of their homes and the only thing you can offer is to
“consider these impacts in the future”? What a joke.

Ask Chappie which lobbyists he met with–at his house–April 17, the Sunday before the big rent control vote. Was it Josh from the California Apartment Association, the landlords NRA? Was it Erik, Greystar’s lobbyist? Nope, it was a group founded last October. Why do they get to meet at his house? Why this group? https://www.facebook.com/BAHN2015/info/?tab=page_info

Check his city hall calendar, there’s no meeting with tenants listed at his house. In fact, it’s the ONLY meeting listed at Chappie’s house. Hmmm…

As a committed proponent of fairness, I contend that if it’s okay for the government to usurp the private property rights of apartment owners – allegedly in the name of the public good, it should apply the same rules to others. Consider:

Scarcity is well-understood to be a major influence in the cost of housing, especially in a market made attractive by a robust jobs market. But scarcity is not immune to the machinations of man, and at present it is the presumed machinations of ______ (fill in your preferred adjective) landlords that has so many ______ (?) up in arms. Landlords stand accused of exploiting the market – making decisions (selling, converting, or redeveloping) based on market-timing without regard for the plight of their tenants (whose relocation is made daunting by that same scarcity).

But home owners time the market in the very same way. When values drop, even those considering a move tend to hunker down and wait out the market (as did banks after the mortgage meltdown). This strategy is good for them but bad for home buyers, who must deal with reduced inventory and a shortening of the time prices remain most affordable. When values start to rise, owners interested in making a move will do their best to time the market, allowing them to refinance (often to improve the value of their investment) when interest rates are low and equity high, or sell their home in a seller’s market (high competition for homes, low loan rates). Home owners manage their investment in ways that typically inflate the market and punish home buyers who either pony up or, in frustration, continue on as renters (exacerbating the rental crisis).

If the public good can be served by controlling the cost and availability of a rental, how is it not served by controlling the cost and availability of a home? Should government permission be required to sell one’s home? And this question can be extended to renters: how is the public good served by allowing people insufficiently employed to occupy a apartment that could otherwise go to someone better able to contribute to the local economy; or by allowing renters to exploit landlords in a down market, where their willingness to move causes landlords to underbid each other, creating rental prices insufficient for proper upkeep (creating slums) and rental rates so low as to dissuade would-be home owners? Shouldn’t renters need government permission to move into or out of an apartment (which is all about serving their self-interests and not the public good)? Think of it, if San Jose will usurp everyone’s self-interests equally it can solve its housing shortage by simply requiring newcomers to obtain a permit (one per newly built or vacated housing unit). Shed not another tear, city hall is here!

It is not surprising that the voices screaming loudest about the housing shortage sound like those who scream loudest for minimum wage increases and amnesty and/or open borders. Their feelings-based version of the public good always calls on the government to forcefully take the self-interest of one group and serve it to another. Whose self-interest is next to be sacrificed no one can tell, and only the ignorant assume themselves safe.

I’ve dealt with the city before. They pretend to listen, then do what they want. That’s why I moved to Campbell. However I am in support of the project for 2 reasons. I don’t feel land owners have any responsibility to supply low cost housing. If the city wants low cost housing, they can build it on their land with their tax dollars. Second, no one forces you to live some place, that is your decision and if it caused hardship, that is what you decided on. I agree, this area is not for everyone, especially those who can’t afford it due to bad life decisions. Time to move where you can afford it. Maybe, just maybe it will be a life improvement.

Let’s address these issues:
First, tenants benefit from property tax control same as anyone, because landlords must recover their costs from their tenants. Property tax goes up, rent must go up, even in rent controlled areas.
Second, property tax is just one expense for landlords. The cost of landscapers, maintenance men, bathroom fixtures, refrigerators and stoves, etc. goes up with inflation. There is no “wage control” or “Home Depot” control. True rent control means that landlords lose money, and they are thus incentivized to sell.
bility to pay.

chiexpat- I beg to differ with you. Rents are made up to cover a landlord’s expenses along with their profit margin. Most tenants now pay for their own gas and electric, water, garbage, and sewer. They also pay for outside lighting.

You sound down right unAmerican with your staunch stance against corporate success. Why do you hate our freedoms???

You say rents are going up due to the housing shortage and greed, I say the housing crisis is compounded by SELFISH individuals who insist on living outside of their means. It really isn’t rocket science

C.D. Costa- LOL! “down right unAmerican with your staunch stance against corporate success. Why do you hate our freedoms???” You’ve got to be kidding me right? I work with and advocate for Veterans. My Father was a Veteran. My Father and Veterans like him didn’t fight and die for America to be bought and sold to the highest, richest bidder! Nor should these heroes and their families be HOMELESS!
Questioning corporate greed is NOT UnAmerican, it is the duty of every citizen to question and challenge institutions that steal, lie, take our money, property, and freedoms away! Try researching what your precious corporations are doing to and have done to this country. How do you like those high prices on your drugs, medical care, insurance policies, bank fees, etc.? How did you like the way the banks stole money from homeowners by giving them bad loans and making a fortune off them when hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and homes? People lost their life savings in that scam, one of many scams that is.
“I say the housing crisis is compounded by SELFISH individuals who insist on living outside of their means. It really isn’t rocket science.” So, I’m guessing that you are very well off, own rental property, or something of that sort to be having such a fit over this. Well C.D. Costa, buckle your seat belt because people are sick and tired of being screwed over by the 1% of people like you. All you have to do is look at the current Presidential election to figure that out.
I wish you well C.D. Costa. See you on the battle field! ;-)

Actually I was sort of kidding with you. You get so bunched up you miss the sarcasm. The fact remains that the United States operates on a capitalist system. Profit is king or haven’t you noticed? We aren’t socialist and when voters had the real opportunity to make a stand to change and move more socialist with the feel good everyone has the right to everything without working for it they passed and went with Trump & Shillary instead. I’m hardly a 1% but I do own my property, pay my taxes and earn my right to complain about how they’re being wasted. I saw your response where you say you’re a renter and moving in two years. So you’re one of those that are priced out, living above your means and grouchy about it. Makes more sense why you want to believe its a “RIGHT” rather than an earned privledge to live in a community. Middle class folks who pay their way, save, and dont over extend on credit, didn’t lose our homes when the bubble burst, rode out recession and continue to live within our means shouldn’t have to pay for those that just wish it were different but cannot pay their way. Folks who don’t like that can vote a different way or move to another place, including a different country. For the record those of us of a certain generation probably all have a father who is a veteran that doesn’t make you special. It makes you very normal. Despite their grand sacrifice even Veteran’s have to face reality about opportunity and where to set up their homes on their return. Its not the service record that matters but the choices they make about career AFTER military that will determine where they can afford to raise their family. Don’t disgrace the veterans by being one of those that encourages them to stay in communities they’re priced out of and live so miserably in when they can thrive someplace else. Be a true advocate and help them get that piece of American dream. But then again, you cant face that reality yourself. Two years can’t come quick enough Ms Self Righteous.

I appreciate some of your comments, but ultimately I get a sense of entitlement from you. What makes a person entitled? I have family on both ends of the extreme if you will between landed in a wealthy area of San Mateo to desperate and looking for housing in the San Jose area. You seem to have such a black and white view of the world. I’m sorry if I pass judgement incorrectly there. What are your thoughts on the people who lived here originally, helped build up this city, but don’t work for Google, Apple, eBay, etc..?

21% of the homeless youth (students) is a large number but they aren’t all college students much less grads. 21% isn’t the highest group of homeless but many are the most vulnerable who are victim not to corporate greed but their parent’s poor choices.

Misrepresent much Kathleen? You’re aggressive and dismissing of anyone who disagrees with you but it has yet to change the fact that the majority of those facing homelessness are living outside their means and could potentially thrive in a communities that were less expensive to live in.

C.D. Costa- I did not misrepresent anything. You are choosing to see things the way you are, not the way they are! Please feel free to cal SJSU and ask them yourself.

“Their parent’s poor choices.” Really? How do you know that? Why should students and parents have to spend decades in debt to pay for college loans? Countries all over the world provide FREE education, why aren’t we? Foreigners who are coming here on H1 visa’s from POOR countries are far more educated than US citizens. Why is that? “But many are the most vulnerable who are victim not to corporate greed” BS! You ever look at the salaries of those running Universities and colleges? The donors of Universities, and colleges? Come on now, you can’t truly be that naive!

“You’re aggressive and dismissing of anyone who disagrees with you.” And you aren’t? A bit like the pot calling the kettle black isn’t it?

Let’s just end this hamster wheel ride and agree to disagree. You can believe what you want. You are entitled to your opinion. Have a good day!

Now you sound like a child “but the other dad’s let their kids play in the street, why can’t I?” Call the whambulance. You want the benefits of what other countries have, then go live there. How about that? Problem solved! You get free education and all you want since you think this country is so off track and bad. Wanting folks to pay their fair share and stop whining for the government to use taxes to cover their bad choices or as a way to live outside their means isnt good for individuals or the country. Im aggressive and dismissive to YOU because you continually attack anyone who disagrees with you and gets very uppity about how you do it. Your trigger seemed to be when folks say that those that can’t afford to live in silicon valley should move. Of course reading further it’s easy to see why. If you’re a renter who is unhappy with your circumstance maybe its just too close to home to admit that YOU can’t afford to live her and the responsible thing to do would be to move Its ok, denial isn’t fun but you can wallow there for as long as you want (or until your rent is raised)

“Don’t disgrace the veterans by being one of those that encourages them to stay in communities they’re priced out of and live so miserably in when they can thrive someplace else. Be a true advocate and help them get that piece of American dream.”

To say that the men/women who fought for your freedom to sit anonymously behind a computer and tout this crap, and to expect them to leave their family and community and just move, after all of their sacrifices to this country is just shameful. I’ve seen and read a lot of heartless crap on SJI but you really take the cake.

You are truly a sad and angry man. You and your elitist attitude exemplify everything I just hate about California, and the Bay Area. And yes you are correct, 2 years can’t come soon enough for me either.

C.D. Costa -I’ll overlook the fact that you took my comment to a troll out of context and respond to your ignorant comment. “The folks priced out of Santa Clara County housing rents or mortgages should contribute something worthy (more money) or be gone.”

So let me see if I understand you correctly, you think MONEY makes a person worthy of living here, and no other contribution to this community matters?

Interesting. How’s the weather on the planet you live on?

Be sure you tell the next Police Officer, Teacher, Firefighter, Nurse, Doctor, Veterinarian, business owner, Minister, server at a restaurant, mechanic, cashier, grocery store person, service worker, etc. that when you see them. I’m sure they’d be happy to know that their contributions to our community mean nothing to you. Then come back and tell us what they said to your insulting remark.

Funny thing about the cops/firefighters argument: San Jose can’t/won’t pay enough to keep/add public safety personnel to the rolls. *IF* San Jose was paying market rate for these positions then they might have an easier time attracing/keeping public safety personnel. Maybe. San Jose’s leadership AND citizens have a hell of a job ahead of them to rebuild the trust San Jose’s public safety agencies USED to have in the citizens and leadership. Hell, the trust may never come back, and by corollary, the public safety personnel may continue to leave more quickly than they can be hired.

That being said, I think the fundamental issue ‘affordable housing’s’ detractors have with the idea of government-imposed ‘affordable housing’ is that taxes – monies taken, not from some third agency, but from other citizens’ earnings – inevitably are transferred to those of ‘lower income’ in order to enable these lower-income citizens to live beyond their means.

What does ‘live beyond means’ mean? All kinds of things: people in Section 8 housing with flat panel televisions larger than the ones I own, smart phones with data plans, more children than they can support, and more. I’ve seen it all, and worse.

And how ridiculous is it that I, as a police officer, whom many, rightfully, point out can’t afford to live in a decent home in San Jose on SJPD’s straight salary should have to pay a portion of my income in taxes so that people who are more poorly educated, have fewer job skills, less job experience, and who contribute vastly less to the community than I am can live outside their means in San Jose.

And for that matter, what does any single individual owe to any other individual in excess of what goods or service may be provided one to the other?

Because that is what is being discussed here that more affluent individuals, collectively, owe a certain lifestyle to those who are less so.

> *IF* San Jose was paying market rate for these positions then they might have an easier time attracing/keeping public safety personnel.

Totally agree.

In fact, the difficulty that San Jose has in filling it’s public safety ranks is virtually PROOF that San Jose is NOT offering market rate pay and benefits.

That being said, the question is “How do you determine “market rate”?

My answer is get the bureaucrats out of the way. They’re really trying to make a living proving that they are SMARTER than the market, and arm wrestle to prove the economic value of a public safety officer is higher or lower than the market says it is.

When the bureaucrat arguing for a lower valuation wins the “negotiation”, the result is a shortage of public safety officers.

But “negotiation” is gospel among certain bureaucratic interests, and I am not optimistic that bureaucrats will allow the market to work.

Its not the only thing but reality is a harsh thing that too many have trouble accepting. Reality is money is how we stay in our communities. Money for rent, mortgage, living expenses. Its not that hard to understand yet you seem to want it to be. This is a great country. There are 50 states and a few territories to choose from. Each with something unique to offer and some more affordable than others. California (Silicon Valley especially) require a little bit more money than a lot of folks have. I happen to fall in one of those categories you list of contributors. Two income family and live well within my means. If I couldn’t afford to live here, I wouldn’t. Why is it a crime in your book to want and expect others to do the same? Its not what you make, its how much you spend.

I had a very interesting conversation with a Housing Specialists and a Council Aide last night while we were waiting for two homeless senior women to show up to get housing and resources. They were a Mother and daughter. (They lost their vehicles, health care, their home and businesses when their husband, Father became terminally ill, and everything went to medical care for the dying man.)

During our conversation, they validated my frustration and disgust that some of the elitists living here in silicon valley, and spouting off here on SJI, have only one good answer to the housing crisis here, “People should just move somewhere else.” I then realized that as short sighted and as ignorant as that attitude is, these/some of you folks have a right to your opinion. That people like these are a big part of the problem not the solution by CHOICE.

So on that note: Carry on telling people to move out, to make better life choices, and to live on the street so that big companies and developers can rip this city apart. I’ll be praying for you that you don’t loose your job when big companies bring in out of State/HB1 workers, that your home isn’t bulldozed down for the sake of “progress,” that you don’t get ill and end up homeless, that you have the time and money to educate your own kids, patrol your own streets, put out fires that will destroy your homes, learn how to fix your own cars/properties, and that you get the joy of ordering everything you need off the internet because low wage workers are run out of this state.

SLUGGER886 – Do you really think you are safe from ending up homeless just because you are a homeowner? LOL! Think again my friend. You are one major illness, and one pay check a way from it yourself, as we all are.

Secondly, if a developer wants your property bad enough, they’ll get it. They are buying up homes all over the place. No one is safe from progress, not even you.

If ever the time came that I lost my home, my income or anything else came up that made it unaffordable for me and my family to live here we’d move and relocate. We would NOT chose to be a burden on the community & city we have called home and thrive in simply because we don’t wanna move. Tragic circumstances do not excuse selfish choices.

I think what many are failing to remember is 672 people ARE living where they can afford it. They chose The Reserves precisely because they could afford it, because these were 216 rent controlled units.

They are being evicted and what they can’t afford is to live almost anywhere else in San Jose, with a vacancy rate of about 3%, less among rent controlled units. And the surrounding areas don’t offer much hope either.

To accept that this mass displacement is OK is like saying “well, the Indians shoulda fought harder for their land.” To blame the tenants for their situation is like blaming the victim of a natural disaster who’s left with no money to rebuild, a carcinogenic FEMA trailer they can’t live in and a car for a home.

The blame lies with city officials for sitting idly by while this is happening. In particular, it lies with the mayor who was part of Plan Bay Area which sowed the seeds for this displacement nightmare. More than anyone else, he had to see this coming and ignored it. And who was at his side through all this planning, on every committee? Erik. And they both know the morally right thing to do is offer ALL residents of The Reserves a displacement compensation similar to San Francisco, but they stick to the line that “they don’t HAVE to.”

What you’re failing to acknowledge is that if they are living in rent controlled housing they CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE CITY. Rent controlled units should be available for emergency housing for those that experience catastrophic life experiences and need a temporary assistance. Years and years, going to decades of living in rent controlled housing and then generational rent controlled dwellers (adult children of folks who grew up in rent controlled and still perpetuate that cycle) are ABUSING THE SYSTEM. Again, the hard truth is they cannot afford to live in Santa Clara County. Why is that so difficult to accept?The reality is that the Reserves didn’t have to offer relocation compensation to ANY of the tenants just like the tenants seem to feel like even though they absolutely cannot afford to pay market rent in Santa Clara County and should re-locate they just don’t want to.

I disagree. As a renter, you have to accept that you may be forced to leave for a variety of reasons. It is the risk you take when you’re a renter. If you live in a rent controlled apartment, you have to open your eyes and look at the rental market around you and realize that maybe your situation just isn’t sustainable long term. I say this as a renter who may eventually be forced out myself. I have a relative who considered moving to the Bay Area but, despite a low 6 figure income, balked when she saw the rents in the Bay Area. She chose Sacramento instead because the rental rates there are more stable and less prone to major spikes. More of us need to face that hard truth and take similar actions instead of waiting until a crisis happens and hoping some magical other will swoop in to save us.

I live at The Reserve and it was not bad choices that got me here. I am a Kindergarten teacher. I have neighbors that are designers, electricians, plumbers, students, and even some that work in tech. These are professions that every community needs. We are getting pushed out. This is a problem for the Bay Area and it will eventually affect you. You should be concerned about what is happening to the middle class instead of telling us that we should live somewhere else. I have no problem moving, but there is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed for those that stay.

@sollysmomma Much love to you. Several of us are going to this meeting. I thought you might be interested: Many activists, planners and decision makers will be at the meeting.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) invite public comments at a joint meeting on Friday, July 8 on alternative planning scenarios for future Bay Area housing and job growth, as well as associated transportation needs. The comment opportunity will follow a staff presentation
summarizing comments heard from public open houses held in each of the nine Bay Area counties, as well as online
comments received to date on an update to the region’s long-range housing and transportation roadmap known as Plan Bay Area 2040. Representatives with community-based organizations will also share key findings from their
outreach in low-income communities and communities of color.
Meeting details are as follows:
What: Public Comment Session, Joint Meeting of MTC’s Planning and ABAG’s Administrative Committees
When: Friday, July 8, 10:30 a.m.,
Where: Bay Area Metro Center Board Room, 375 Beale Street, San Francisco; note that the meeting
will be streamed live from MTC’s web site: http://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/meetings/live-webcasts

“I live at The Reserve and it was not bad choices that got me here.” I beg to differ.

“I am a kindergarten teacher.” Does that make you better than a yoga teacher?

“We are getting pushed out.” You’re getting pushed out because of decades-long rent control policies which discouraged construction of new rental housing.

“This is a problem for the Bay Area and it will eventually affect you.” Again, this will only affect people dependent on rent control.

“You should be concerned about what is happening to the middle class instead of telling us that we should live somewhere else.” If you live in a rent controlled housing you are not middle class by definition.

“I have no problem moving, but there is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed for those that stay.”

The “bigger problem” was created by the benevolent rent control policies which caused the exact opposite and we should very well know by now that doing same things and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Are you really middle class if you’re living in subsidized housing? That’s self delusion is part of the problem. The good thing for you and your family is that public schools exist in every city and county across the nation. California teaching credentials are recognized in every state so the best option for you might be to look for a more affordable community rather than this overpriced one.

Blah, blah blah! Take your concerns to the Mayor and City Council who overwhelmingly approved this displacement. To newly elected Chappie Jones for willing to vote along with the big boys and becoming the puppet and one of the good ‘ol boys of city council with no brain to call his own. What a pity! Good luck in moving to anywhere in the Bay Area orbit ( Sac, Modesto etc. ) as prices rise and living conditions drop drastically. Yea Bay Area!

Yeah CORONAFL, tell ‘em like it is! If we could get just a tiny bit more of this rent control thingy to suppress the profit margins of those filthy rich landlord bastards, and vilify them as much as nazis vilified the Jews, then everything will get back to “normal” and we’ll provide enough “affordable” housing for everyone (legal, illegal, or H1-Begal) and their mother in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the solar system. Deal?

I do care. I care enough to offer a practical and immediate solution one that is much more realistic than the “take down the greedy landowner ones”. If you can afford it, stay. If you can’t, then move. Practical and immediate. Hard, no doubt, but still necessary. Helping people live in denial isn’t really helping them.

I am from San Jose, born and raised. I love my hometown and wish I could live there. Unfortunately, I can’t afford it, and I accept that. I moved to a city I CAN afford and travel to San Jo when ever I feel a little homesick. There are many affordable cities people can move to in Northern California. If you can’t afford to live there, time to move on. No amount of affordable housing will ever be enough in the Silicon Valley.

The Friday, July 8 meeting is the regularly scheduled series of MTC and ABAG meetings. While it may be the “last” time for public comment on the Plan Bay Area revision, it is last in a series of meetings, including two in San Jose. You can always submit comments, take surveys, sign up for info and become further informed and involved at http://www.planbayarea.org. None of the timing was meant to keep people from testifying or commenting; there has been a robust outreach program.

On Wednesday, July 6 the Regional Equity Working Group (REWG) meets at 10:15 am and the PAC meets at 1:30pm in the SF office. You can find the agendas posted at http://www.mtc.ca.gov. If you are going to be attending in a group to the REWG you need to let them know; this is typically a wonky small group that meets in a small conference room so for the sake of comfort and access, let them know in advance. The PAC meets in the board chambers so there’s plenty of room there. And an overflow! Contact info is on agendas.

Plan Bay Area (PBA) did not “spawn” Urban Villages. They are a result of San Jose’s General Plan which was completed before PBA. Your beef is with the city council on all of the zoning, GP amendments and designated Urban Village sites that are SJ’s Priority Development Areas.

What we have is a developer who followed the rules, PBA following the rules, SJ following the rules and residents getting screwed. Because we needed new rules or needed to adopt rules like other communities have or recognize, hey, we have no rules here.

These residents are working, middle class people living their lives. This isn’t subsidized housing nor are they asking for handouts, nor did they “make mistakes” and “wind up” where they are. They simply want to know why all the rules were followed and they are being pushed out into a market with a 3% vacancy rate. If the building was destroyed in an earthquake, flood or fire, there would be contingencies.

As for the “go live someplace cheaper” line …. if they leave, their jobs (at a lower pay rate if they have seniority) will still be here. The jobs don’t go anywhere, people have to fill them and those people have to live somewhere, too.

But absolutely nothing will change as long as people are being distracted by arguing with each other or blaming people rather than coming up with solutions.

I’ve studied all the documents Randi. The federal incentives (MONEY) are handed out if cities plan things the way the MTC wants. And there’s the grind. Money and desire for it, led to all the upzoning in PDA’s just like the MTC wanted. The MTC folks are getting exactly what they wanted….why are you surprised at all that 672 people are losing their homes?

Just accept the fact that I don’t agree with your perception, and neither do a majority of others. Climb out of your black robe, lay down your gavel, get out from from behind your computer, and MOVE to some place that has the perfection, and paradise YOU seek!

People dependent on rent control in Silicon Valley don’t live within their means and are solely there because of the government imposed price control policy which in itself represents a burden to society in a variety of ways.

The vast majority of general public as well as 90%+ economists are opposed to price controls.

In closing, you Kathleen, are either willfully ignorant of the facts or you’re intentionally pushing this failed concept upon others in order to benefit yourself in some way, shape or form.

VanillaFace- “The vast majority of general public as well as 90%+ economists are opposed to price controls. In closing, you Kathleen, are either willfully ignorant of the facts or you’re intentionally pushing this failed concept upon others in order to benefit yourself in some way, shape or form. I believe it’s the latter.”

Well Borat, You are correct, it is the later. I do get a great deal out of working with others to make my community better. I also know that tax payers like you, me, and everyone else, because EVERYONE pays taxes, not just homeowners/businesses owners, pay out more money on homelessness, and social services if we do NOT address the lack of housing.

“People dependent on rent control in Silicon Valley don’t live within their means and are solely there because of the government imposed price control policy which in itself represents a burden to society in a variety of ways.” That’s a pretty ignorant statement. It seems to me irregardless of income, LOTS of folks live beyond their means and to limit that to folks on rent control is discriminatory. And finally, if you had done your homework, you’d know that it doesn’t matter what your income is, you can live in a rent controlled unit.

Your’e the judgy one Kathleen and I don’t buy that the majority of folks don’t agree with me. If the majority agreed with you we’d have a lot more outcry about the loss of rent control instead of the nationwide swell behind Trump saying to government “get your hand outta my pocket”. Pay your own way is an American concept that Americans are embracing. I don’t need to move from my computer or my community I’m in a place I can afford with reasonable savings for the emergency. Those of you that can’t will be pushed out whether you want it to happen or not. Those of you “Planning” retirement out of state or the area are agreeing with us even though you continually deny it. Deny, deny, deny all you want. Not all can afford to live here and the responsible thing to do is to move to a more affordable community.

sjoutsidethebubble- “ KATHLEEN:> “The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty, and all forms of human life” . John F. Kennedy Be careful what you wish far.There are people who believe that poverty can be abolished, by “eliminating” poor people.You know. eliminating:Abortion, euthanasia, “Assisted suicide”. “Death with dignity”. All ways of eliminating people. Margaret Sanger believed in eliminating black people.”

Finally! A statement you’ve made that is worth discussing! THANK YOU! Many, including YOU seem to think that this housing crisis/poverty is an easy thing to deal with/solve, well it IS NOT! Making people move, getting rid of rent control/affordable housing/rent subsidies, the homeless, the poor, refusing to support solutions due to increased taxes, is NOT the answer.

It is a very complex problem that involves a whole host of solutions that no one wants to look at. Getting rid of people you deem as undesirable/a tax burden isn’t one of them!

Next up for Erik and his buddies at city hall: let’s displace couple of hundred seniors on fixed incomes who own their homes in Winchester Ranch. They have lived here all their lives but go ahead and say they are living where they can no longer afford. They should leave their town and families. Some people have ice water running through their veins. Shame on city council.

We must put pressure on Pulte Homes to drop its bid to purchase the land from sleazebag Arioto that inherited the land. His Uncle lived on it and loved it and shared it with his neighbors. Now the ice water runs through his veins as he (the privileged, and spoiled inheritor of land) says to hell with them. There are other types of wealth that something tells me Arioto knows nothing about.

It’s Erik, it’s Arioto, and it’s Pulte Homes….all out to kick out these seniors. It’s immoral and we must protect these seniors.

Why should Mr. Arioto not be allowed to dispose of property he owns in whatever way he sees fit? Why are YOU or OTHERS EVER entitled to impose YOUR will on another person with respect to the manner in which he conducts his LAWFUL business?

There’s a simple solution. Gather all your coins and buy the property then you can let the seniors live there for free all at your expense. Why people think it is every business owners responsibility to make folks feel good or take care of them is beyond me. He inherited the land/property and wants to make a profit. If you disagree, find a buyer or become the buyer and then take the loss. Why should a private, lawful owner be punished? Why should the taxpayer be punished over and over for these subsidies?

The July 16 [2015 – diane] agenda of ABAG Executive Board included a staff report on MTC’s alleged proposal to move ABAG’s Planning and Research Department to MTC. That’s the institutional equivalent of a heart transplant.

In short, this is no bureaucratic squabble but rather a major power struggle. The antagonists are two public agencies whose decisions about housing, land use, and transportation are profoundly reshaping the life of the region (think Plan Bay Area, for starters).

As the dispute over anti-displacement suggests, should MTC prevail, social justice in the Bay Area is going to suffer.

….

I wrote the foregoing sentence with hesitation. I’ve observed both MTC and ABAG for many years; up to now, they’ve seemed equally high-handed and opaque.

The events of the past few weeks have altered my perception. Above all, the clash over anti-displacement policy revealed MTC’s allegiance to the greedy real estate industry and ABAG’s willingness to oppose that industry in behalf of the region’s most vulnerable residents—and common sense.

The phrase “without displacing current low-income residents” was inserted into Plan Bay Area in 2013 thanks to the vigorous public campaign undertaken by the Six Wins for Social Equity Network.

ABAG staff wants to keep the anti-displacement language in the updated Plan Bay Area as the performance target under Goal #2.

MTC staff wants to replace that language with “no increase in in-commuters” (people who live outside the region driving in for work). They think displacement can be addressed under a new “performance target” for Goal #6, “Equitable Access”: “increase the share of affordable housing in PDAs” [Priority Development Areas—places that local jurisdictions have nominated for high-density construction].

(Randi [Kinman], who commented above), is also mentioned in the piece (though typo’d as Randy).

The July 16 [2015 – diane] agenda of ABAG Executive Board included a staff report on MTC’s alleged proposal to move ABAG’s Planning and Research Department to MTC. That’s the institutional equivalent of a heart transplant.

In short, this is no bureaucratic squabble but rather a major power struggle. The antagonists are two public agencies whose decisions about housing, land use, and transportation are profoundly reshaping the life of the region (think Plan Bay Area, for starters).

As the dispute over anti-displacement suggests, should MTC prevail, social justice in the Bay Area is going to suffer.

….

I wrote the foregoing sentence with hesitation. I’ve observed both MTC and ABAG for many years; up to now, they’ve seemed equally high-handed and opaque.

The events of the past few weeks have altered my perception. Above all, the clash over anti-displacement policy revealed MTC’s allegiance to the greedy real estate industry and ABAG’s willingness to oppose that industry in behalf of the region’s most vulnerable residents—and common sense.

The phrase “without displacing current low-income residents” was inserted into Plan Bay Area in 2013 thanks to the vigorous public campaign undertaken by the Six Wins for Social Equity Network.

ABAG staff wants to keep the anti-displacement language in the updated Plan Bay Area as the performance target under Goal #2.

MTC staff wants to replace that language with “no increase in in-commuters” (people who live outside the region driving in for work). They think displacement can be addressed under a new “performance target” for Goal #6, “Equitable Access”: “increase the share of affordable housing in PDAs” [Priority Development Areas—places that local jurisdictions have nominated for high-density construction].

(Randi [Kinman], who commented above), is also mentioned in the piece (though typo’d as Randy).

Diane. It would have been nice if you’d asked if my tone was regretful or if it was irritated because as I remember it, this was a response to ABAG staff saying they were once again “discussing” language. I was there for the entire meeting, so you could have simply asked. It was irritation, not regret. ABAG had presented us with a stalemate on language for several months and just days before the meeting you are citing, ABAG had no “new” language, hence the vote the PAC took. MTC presented language that was directly from the settlement agreement. And frankly, we repeatedly asked ABAG to explain how their language aligned with a legal ruling and were given no response.

As for your opinion piece, I would hope that folks actually look at what has been done since that meeting over the last 12 months rather than your opinion on what was going on then. All of the targets are generated jointly by MTC and ABAG staff.

You’re using a very interesting choice of language, especially the “displacement” noun, which takes this non-issue completely out of context in order to make it sound as if people are loaded onto the cattle train heading for Auschwitz.

dis·place·ment
disˈplāsmənt/

“the enforced departure of people from their homes, typically because of war, persecution, or natural disaster.”
“the displacement of farmers by guerrilla activity”

Do you know the Muni bus[es] to take from the Caltrain Station to the July 8th Open to the Public!™Plan Bay Area!™ meeting at 375 Beale Street, San Francisco? To my recollect there’s no Bart connection (let alone the higher expense) at the train station, but that’s been years ago?

That would be helpful – at least for those few Way too Early Retired and DIsabled who are able to afford it (approximately $25 transportation expense, $13 for those who qualify for Disabled and over 65 senior discounts ) – just to be likely over-powered and over numbered by Lobbyists and Faux Advocates for Humanity.

As it is, all working non techie jobs (and many working techie jobs) will OBVIOULLSY not be able to take off work to even make it there, which seems a feature, not a bug.

As to major Outreach? I don’t recollect any whatsover; particularly since it is a well known secret that many Elders, Disabled, and Otherwise Poor do not have Computers, they simply cannot afford the horrid Planned Obselence and Rentier Fees, for just one reason.

Diane, everybody and anybody can comment about the plan online if you missed the other public meetings that were held on weekends and during evening hours in multiple counties. There is an entire outreach team that you can ask for particulars about how and when meetings were held and how and when notices were posted or delivered. I’m not going to get into it with you and your obvious beef with MTC/ABAG/PBA. That is off topic from San Jose’s lack of displacement policy. Transit and transportation information can be obtained by calling 511 or the 511 website.

I have a BIG beef with Plan Bay Area! You said earlier that you 672 people being displaced “was never supposed to happen”. Bull crap!!! Of course it was supposed to happen. That is EXACTLY how and why San Jose got its federal transportation dollars from the MTC. Don’t kid yourself Randi, you and I both know that Mayor Liccardo is an MTC commissioner and Chuck Reed’s goal to get him on the MTC commission was to have influence and to understand how to tap into those federal dollars you guys are dishing out. AND IT WORKED. Upzone properties, plan exactly how MTC wants you to and POOF! You’re in the top running for Federal Dollars. Who cares about the actual people that will have to move one. The Mayor and Planning department PLANNED on this. If you go to the cities land use report it states, “new development will come mostly from the redevelopment of existing properties”.

I’ve studied ALL 51 faux planning meeting notes from the Mayor (then councilmember) Liccardo’s led task force that spoon fed all the members the information they were pretty much told to vote on in a certain way. (they are all sold on the koolaid, greenbelt.org, SPUR, SVLG, Bicycle Coalition, etc.)

I KNOW first hand that our general plan voted on in 2011 by the task force appointed solely by Chuck Reed, was intended to match up with what MTC would require in order to apply and get the One Bay Area grant and a Priority Development Area planning grant. During one audio of the meeting they actually say it out loud!!! “How can we tap into those funds”? Please don’t try to pass off untruths here to have the MTC save face. MTC knows that it is caused EXTRAORDINARY displacement above and beyond market forces. Marium Zuk of the displacement study can tell you. She ran the study that was paid for and called to do by a judge as part of the judgement against PBA in a lawsuit! Displacement is a part of how the plan must proceed. It is a fact. This is what happened to the Reserve. It was supposed to happen – that’s what planning ahead means.

The Reserve was upzoned, the general plan (land use document) was voted on, Erik Schoenauer was on the task force and just like that…..a shiny new building along a major corridor near a regional commercial center with lots of tax dollars to come was proposed and passed like magic. DO NOT TELL ME THAT THE MTC COULDN’T BELIEVE THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN!!!! IT IS THE PLAN!!!!!

An appropriate displacement policy could have prevented some of the pain for the displaced. Greystar is a despicable corporation and our Mayor and Council did not even think about what would happen during a 3% vacancy rate eviction time frame to these residents. DUMB AS DIRT!!! The mission of the Mayor and Council and the City of San Jose is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. So they failed here. Plain as can be. FAILED. They are chasing revenue here and that’s all they can think about.

Sorry Randi, I know you have to protect the folks you work with, but Plan Bay Area and Envision 2040 are one and the same and Liccardo is driving this “get federal dollars” no matter what the cost. In this case it was the cost of 216 individuals and or families being kicked out of their homes during the WORST housing shortage this city has EVER had.

AND THE MTC SHOULD OFFER DISPLACEMENT FUNDS TO THESE INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ACT. You set up the rules and need people to move out of the way for progress, so in my mind Greystar, San Jose, and the MTC should pay to relocate residents under what appears to be a “capitol improvement” to the City of San Jose under the direction of the State and Fed. Government.

Good morning Jill. I won’t try to unpack everything here, but just a few clarifications.

First of all, I don’t have to protect anybody except the low income residents of Santa Clara County that I represent. When I say we at our meetings were surprised that this came through SJ with no protections, it’s a fact. You don’t have to take my word for it, pull the tapes. Every single statement is recorded.So, I’m sticking with the statement and there’s no “liar, liar, pants on fire” needed. That’s the benefit of public records.

Second, E2040 was completed in 2011, PBA in 2013. In 2011 PBA was still in the outreach, public input, EIR, development stage. So, something that doesn’t exist can’t give birth to something that was already on the books. The only agency that had anything to do with E2040 was ABAG because they negotiated the RHNA numbers with CSJ.

As for me “making the rules”, oh, dear. Please read my response to Diane and her assertion that I hold some vast source of “power”.

It’s Capital not Capitol Improvements and to date, MTC has not told SJ what to do, has not broken ground on any project here and isn’t even in that business. They don’t have that capacity, they aren’t a build it agency and they have no regulatory oversight. What they do have is the capacity to set up grant programs that align with the restrictions the money (whether Federal, State or Tooth Fairy) comes with. They are mandated to act as an oversight body in that respect, setting up the distribution process to ensure money is spent and tracked lawfully.

Oh, and it’s 216 units, not people…the people number is closer to 700 as you well know.

Look forward to reading the comments and hearing testimony as we wrap up this round of Plan Bay Area Update.

As for your opinion piece, I would hope that folks actually look at what has been done since that meeting over the last 12 months rather than your opinion on what was going on then. All of the targets are generated jointly by MTC and ABAG staff.

My opinion piece? I did not write it.

Please re-read my comment, I expressed no opinion whatsoever, I did not even quote what was noted about your commentary at that meeting.

I have a response floating around (‘posted’ at 2:44 PDT), inexplicably not posted yet (no hyperlinks, insults, swear words etcetera, etcetera), to Randi’s first comment to me.

Many are fully aware that – if and when a response commment finally posts – it will appear, after the fact, to have been posted at the time I posted it; AND, it will appear to have been part of the current dialogue – which my response comment, in this current instance, most certainly is not.

Second attempt at my response to Randi Kinman’s first response to my first comment on this piece (honestly, I can find no clear reason as to why my first attempt did not post, as there were no: hyperlinks; swear words/implied swear words; name calling; or accusations):

Randi,

Regarding your comment to me (above):

Randi Jul 1, 2016 @ 2:12 pm

Diane. ….

As for your opinion piece, I would hope that folks actually look at what has been done since that meeting over the last 12 months rather than your opinion on what was going on then. All of the targets are generated jointly by MTC and ABAG staff.

My opinion piece? I did not write it.

Please re-read my comment, I expressed no opinion about you whatsoever, I did not even quote what was noted about your commentary at that meeting.

(2nd try update: I’m rather horrified at your apparent power, Randi, as regards to your actually not taking any time to comprehend what someone has written. Priceless, since you finger wagged so much above (in your first comment posted above) about people moving on and solving things and not finger wagging).

Horrid dodge on my CalTrain to Muni Bus transportation to that meeting question, by the way. If you actually cared – especially since you are receiving a livable wage check during the business hours in which you’re responding here – you would have just checked what buses to take from the S.F. CalTrain Station at 4th Street, to 395 Beale Street, July 8th Public Meeting (which should be simple for you as an MTA employee). Instead, you spit out a stunningly insulting response regarding online comments versus travelling to that meeting (I cannot access that comment capability, being on dial up, the only thing I can afford) and the dial 511 insult, have you dialed a 511 bot lately? Pathetic response to a very simple question!)

Diane, I should have state “the” not “your”. For that I apologize. And I should have stated “the author”. But it is an opinion piece while it draws from actual meetings.

You must be confusing me with staff. I don’t get a paycheck for this and am not earning a livable wage while responding. I am a volunteer. Any time spent here is my time. Next week will cost me about 16 hours of productive time, so please vent that elsewhere. Or still chastise me if you wish, for something untrue that you assume, your choice.

You asked me a specific transit question. I’m not a transit operator and don’t work for one so I gave you the answer I use when I have a transit question. Or a road condition question. If it doesn’t work for you, then please give your feedback to 511. It works better than me telling staff that somebody I don’t know, don’t know where she lives, don’t know anything about her transit needs, complained to me about unspecified issues regarding 511.

I look forward to reading the feedback collected at meetings and online and look forward to the testimony next week.

I’m mulling that over, in the mean time though, I take it you have a mortgage/rent paying job in order for you to have such a powerful sounding position, I’m MTC’s Policy Advisory Council’s (PAC) chair (your words above)…which seemingly allows you to cry IM NOT BEING PAID FOR THESE PRODUCTIVE HOURS to assist those being mowed over when anyone tosses you a non MTCA foot kissing response?

@Diane: There is NO reason to attack Randi. I have no idea who you are, how big that splinter is you’ve got stuck up your planet or why you’ve got such a throbbing one for Randi, but, in my opinion, it’s way off base.

In the years I’ve known Randi, they’ve always landed on the side of the people, on the side of social justice, on the side of the little guy, not the side of the bully. Right now, you are definitely being the bully and a bit of the lunatic (grammar was lost long ago, you’re screaming, making non-nonsensical arguments and accusations, being incredibly paranoid, etc.) and it’s for those reasons I will not respond to any further posts from you and encourage Randi not to as well.

I also encourage the moderator to question further posts from you if they are in the same “I am unwell” vein.

Sure, Diane, you can ask. The Policy Advisory Council is a volunteer board of people from all bay area counties. I’ve served for a number of years and am rotating in this round as the chair. We are appointed by the MTC commissioners after an application and review process. The seats open on a rotating basis and you can read all about it on the MTC website. It’s all there, including when openings occur in what categories in case you want to devote some unpaid time to the cause. http://www.mtc.ca.gov

This is an advisory board, so none of us spend a lot of time kissing anybody’s feet or other body parts, but we do spend a lot of time as advocates arguing for the best positions we can to ensure there is equity and justice in the decisions made. I’m pretty sure that out of the two dozen or so members of the PAC, less than a handful are on company time and those tend to be the ones who live closest to HQ. So, the rest of us either make up what we lose at our businesses and/or jobs. But when I tell you that the hours next week, for instance, will amount to two full days, it’s not crying, it’s a response to your delightful “livable wage” “mortgage/rent paying job” scenarios that have zero basis in fact.

Yes, this volunteer powerless position costs me money. Every month. And I do it because we need a transit and transportation infrastructure programs/policies that serve equitably. And I will continue to go to meetings, answer questions (no matter how rude), work with residents and anything else that needs doing because I’ve found it’s not very productive to just sit around and be rude or complain to the folks on the interwebs.

So, in that vein, where do you live, how can I help you with your transportation problems, what are the specific things you would like to relay to staff, do you need financial assistance for transit, what are your needs in this arena that I can help with? And if you’re not from Santa Clara County, do you want me to introduce you to the PAC representatives in your county so you have better access?

Jill- Bubble is big on trying to dominate the conversation, push people off of this site, and insult people, but never has anything of substance to say or offer. He spends most of his time, and he seems to have a lot of it, bashing everything and everyone, but isn’t part of the solution, like some of the other regulars on here. Yeah, he’ll has some smart ass remark for what I just said, but I could care less.

I wish you much luck on your situation. You are all in my thoughts and prayers. God Bless.

JMO-“Kathleen, Jill, Diane, and others all talk about government subsidies for those who cannot afford to live in SV. There is no such thing as a GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY. All so-called government subsidies are tax dollars, which are taken from those who make good choices to support those who make bad choices.”

EVERYONE pays taxes JMO, not just folks like you. I pay taxes just like you, and so does everyone else. Rents are calculated to cover ALL landlords’ expenses, TAXES included, and I know you know that. Secondly, large corporations are subsidizing rents for their employees and bordering cities are building up their businesses instead of building housing for their emplyees which are driving up the price of housing. Also, anyone receiving a housing subsidy PAYS a large portion of the rent themselves. NOTHING is FREE!

I do agree that Father’s should be paying for their kids, I do agree that if you can’t afford to have children then you shouldn’t be pumping them out like kittens, I do agree that good life choices are necessary, but I disagree that making good life choices guarantees you a successful financial life. If that were the case, many college educated folks paying off school loans wouldn’t be working jobs beneath their educational skills, or being homeless while in college. Many wouldn’t be losing their homes due to the outrageous costs of medical care, and our Veterans wouldn’t be homeless.

That’s right, Kathleen, nothing is free. All subsidies are funded by taxpayers, other PEOPLES’ money, not government money. People on housing subsidies pay a portion of the rent, but not the large portion you claim. Having fewer kids may no eliminate the problem, but it will reduce the deficit. Having kids you cannot afford exacerbates the problems for people who earn too little to support themselves, let alone kids. Subsidize it, and they will come.

Kathleen contends: “EVERYONE pays taxes JMO, not just folks like you. I pay taxes just like you, and so does everyone else.” Actually, all people do NOT pay taxes, Kathleen. According to IRS figures, 47% of all US wage earners “on the books” pay ZERO federal income tax. I haven’t found figures for state income tax, but I’d venture to say that the percentage of non-taxpayers is higher than it is for the feds, and many states have no income tax. Obviously, non-wage earners pay no taxes, and the huge mass of illegals from Mexico who work for cash pay no taxes either, yet they bring every problem pregnancy from Panama to Mexico to the US, AND they get medical care, schooling in their language not ours (but half drop out to go on welfare) and breakfast and lunch at no cost to them. But REAL WORKING PEOPLE pay for that Kathleen, not the government. Homeowners pay real property tax in addition to their mortgage. Renters do not pay a property tax in addition to their rent. Since sales tax exempts food, many people pay little or no sales tax. Those who work support those who won’t. If you’re OK with that Kathleen, fine, it’s your choice; but I am not. Middle and upper class folks who work and/or pay taxes on investment gains pick up the tab for over half our population. Kathleen, Diane, and Jill, How about the 3 of you each take on a third of my “share”?

In fact, Kathleen, as I think more about it, old folks like me pay tax twice. I have worked since the day after I turned 16. My employers and I were taxed to fund Social Security–they paid half and I paid half. When I became self-employed, the entire amount of that tax was taken from me by the government, to the tune of something like 16% of my gross earnings, which was deducted over and above my income tax. Now that I am collecting Social Security, the feds are taxing my Social Security payments, taxing me again for giving me back my money; all to pick up someone else’s tabs, who apparently the government believes are more ENTITLED to it than those who have worked for it. Multiply that by the millions of retirees in this country, and it’s a huge ripoff, and we’re pissed.

Kathleen contends “I disagree. EVERYONE is entitled to live where they want;…” OK, Kathleen, I want to live in Atherton, or Malibu Beach, or Balboa Island. I’ll even take Aspen or Monaco. Will you set it up for me? I’ll take either one, since I’m ENTITLED. The problem with your position, Kathleen, is that nobody is ENTITLED to anything but the OPPORTUNITY to succeed in order to live where they want. Mercedes ads talk about getting the car “you DESERVE,” which is a synonym for ENTITLED. The concept that everyone is ENTITLED just because they’re alive, and with no effort on their part, is what’s destroying this country, Kathleen; and folks like you, and Jill, and Diane, and Bernie Sanders are at the forefront of that destruction.

FIrst, you have put me in the same bundle of folks as Bernie Sanders and I say, thank you for the compliment.

Second, I’m not sure if you have read the basics of my argument but if you would like to address my actual argument, I would appreciate it. I never said, people are entitled to live where they want. Do I think people are entitled to be able to find housing within the city they currently live in after being involuntarily evicted? Yes, I do. San Jose allowed this mass eviction to proceed (and planned for it with upzoning) KNOWING that a good portion of those living there would not be able to find adequate housing within their city. We have a planning department that planned on these projects going forward under a policy of JOBS first and purposefully preventing housing to be built to make sure they would find a place within the city to land. By aiming to bring more jobs to San Jose but avoid building enough housing for those jobs, San Jose is now JUST AS GUILTY as Santa Clara in planning more jobs but not planning for housing those people that take those jobs.

It sounds good on paper to correct our historical jobs housing imbalance, but if there is already a vacancy rate at 3% with WAY more jobs (people) coming than housing being built….it’s sure a cruel way to correct the jobs/housing imbalance. It means our city has instituted a government sponsored banishment program. Once someone loses their existing housing….unless they are able to rent at Santana Row or the new Hitachi project…they are pretty much GONE. Out of the city. I call that cruel planning.

So please answer this: Do you think it is reasonable for a citizen living in a city, paying taxes, invested in a career or attending school, paying rent, being invested in a child’s school or other church or community group, have an established medical plan with a good doctor (etc.), to be able to find a place within the same city to live? What if you knew that the city had INTENTIONALLY reduced the amount of housing allowed to be built so they knew that those evicted would have to leave San Jose? I don’t believe this is reasonable and so I believe that relocation expenses should be paid to ALL those that are being involuntarily evicted through no fault of their own and those relocation expenses could help those banished to be successfully relocated within our city and of course if no place can be found (most likely) those relocation funds can be used to help those leave our city…which apparently you, the city and the likes of others on this blog believe they should do.

There are 672 people at the Reserve according the the EIR. I have met many of them and have heard their stories. I WANT them here. I DO believe that the elderly man that worked his whole life here and now lives in a studio at the Reserve, is entitled to at a minimum, find a place to live in his city that now is booting him out. There is NO place. That is the problem. Out with the “old” worker and in with the new worker. At some point, I believe it is my duty as a citizen of San Jose and the U.S. to give a crap about those you believe are worthy of disposing like trash. I believe it is my job to look at city policy and to find out if it is intentionally designed to hurt my fellow citizens. If it does, it’s my job to stand up to it.

The founding fathers thought that the right to pursue happiness was pretty important. Pray tell Johnmichael, how do we banish our elderly willfully without an appropriate place to live and then say, “no worries…you still can pursue happiness…just do it somewhere else…thanks for helping out while you were young!”

When bitter injustice comes knocking on your door Johnmichael, God willing, I’ll be there for you along with many others that believe you and each human matters.

JMO- You and I can agree to disagree. You are twisting what I say to benefit your argument and making this personal. It is not personal for me.

You know very well that rents include a landlord’s expenses including their property taxes. I never said that they pay property taxes on top of their rent. Try reading what I said again. You also know full well that renters work hard for their money and deserve a decent place to live. A place without rats, roaches, mold etc.

It seems to me that many of you on SJI are very much uneducated about subsidies. You make it sound like the elderly, disabled, and Veterans who are on a fixed income of like $500-$900.00 a month paying out 32-40% of their income for rent is “not that much.” Really? Well try living on it, anywhere in this country.

And finally, let me just say that you and others on here are certainly “entitled” to your opinions. I however, don’t think it is wrong to believe that EVERYONE IS ENTITLED to basic necessities like food, water, air, warmth, clothes, medical care, and a roof over their heads. Further, it is my personal belief that anyone who thinks they can deny people basic human rights like these are what is destroying this country, not those who fight to ensure the right for others to survive. Yes, SURVIVE!

The comment opportunity will follow a staff presentation summarizing comments heard from public open houses [I never received that notice for my area of Santa Clara County (and was it only a one worday hours opportunity, and if you couldn’t make it, tough luck?) – diane] held in each of the nine Bay Area counties, as well as online comments received to date on an update to the region’s long-range housing and transportation roadmap known as Plan Bay Area 2040. Representatives with community-based organizations will also share key findings from their outreach in low-income communities and communities of color. Meeting details are as follows:

It is not at all clear what time it would be allowed/beneficial for the affected public to arrive (if at all able, given the location, expense, weekday and time) at the meeting.

It seems there might be a meeting, and staff presentation (The comment opportunity will follow a staff presentation summarizing comments heard from public open houses held in each of the nine Bay Area counties) the public would want to hear prior to the Public Comment Session; so, for one thing, is the staff presentation slated for 10:30 (which has been noted as the Public Comment Session slot), or prior to that?

Bottom line, at what exact time is the Public allowed to sit in and hear the planning going on surrounding their fates?

Diane, again, I’m not staff and I don’t control or even have input, but let me give you my best guess based on experience. Friday is the sequential meeting day where all of the committees are convened for MTC business and this will be followed by the joint MTC/ABAG public hearing. So, if somebody gets all excited and down in the weeds on an agenda item on the earlier meetings, it could be later. If they breeze through, it could be earlier than 10:30 and I believe that the agenda stated directly following the MTC 9:40am meeting, but last I looked there was no agenda for the 9:40 meeting.

Not trying to obfuscate, but it’s not my meeting. I’ve shown up at 9:30 expecting to get my presentation over quickly only to spend the next three hours listening to intense conversation and testimony. I’ve strolled in at other times expecting to have time to finish coffee only to have them zip through earlier agendas and I look like Kramer from Seinfeld flying into the room. My honest suggestion is earlier is better.

But this is the final public meeting so the testimony will go as long as it takes. Everybody gets their allotted time. If you want to see all of the details of what info has been gathered at the previous workshops (there were two in one day in San Jose) then that’s all on the PBA website. This will be a chance for you to voice your concerns, but there won’t likely be any back and forth conversation.

If you decide that it’s it too burdensome to attend, again, visit the Plan Bay Area website and submit your feedback. All meetings are now streamed live.

But, again, like your transit question, I’m giving you the best info I have. Questions about the specifics of the meeting should be directed to the contact information provided on the agenda.

But this is the final public meeting so the testimony will go as long as it takes. Everybody gets their allotted time.

….

Not pointing at you, but addressing you – in your capacity as a public representative -when I note that it does not at all appear that the Public will get – nor have received to date – their proclaimed allotted time [1]. How can they, when it is utterly unclear as to when they should arrive and be allowed to sit down somewhere to receive their allotted time?

Further, those from Santa Clara County who are elderly and disabled (if they can fit the transportation fee into their month’s budget) have to wake up quite early to allow for a meal and dressing (which takes many elderly and disabled people quite a bit of time) and at least an hour’s commute – directly after waking up from yet more cold sweat nightmares about ending up homeless. And those rare few working who have bosses nice enough to allow them to show up at that meeting, are expected to show up at work at some point.

That’s not to mention the three block walk the elderly and disabled will need to take from the closest Muni stop at Embarcadero & Harrison, in order to get to 375 Beale Street (at the corner of Harrison and Beale Streets, in San Francisco) which oddly has no Muni or Bart line along it, although it houses the MTC [Metropolitan Transportation Commission] PUBLIC AGENDA MEETINGS™.

Talk about Obfuscation (again relaying this to you in your position as a messenger – MTC’s Policy Advisory Council as the representative of the low-income community of Santa Clara County..)

[1] As to your utterly tone deaf, … actually stunningly offensive – though I do not claim that you are in a position to even be aware how offensive it really is, and I am not faulting you for that inability, you really have to be there – comment:

Randi Jul 2, 2016 @ 7:29 pm
….
If you decide that it’s it too burdensome to attend, again, visit the Plan Bay Area website and submit your feedback. All meetings are now streamed live.

….

Sorry (not your doing, but again, you have been willingly appointed as a messenger), but the Online Forum: http : // planbayarea . org / misc / open – forum .html is an utter joke, which showed: This topic has 78 visitors and 18 responses: 10 on forum responses and 8 off forum responses. as I took my screen pic of it at 07/03/16 1:18 PM PDT.

For one, clearly there was no meaningful, ‘across the board’ Outreach™ regarding that questionnaire, whatsoever. Secondly, as I noted early on in our back and forth, those most at threat do not have affordable internet access in any meaningful sense of that term, if at all (most especially given the sickening and stunning rate of allowed obsolescence and employee commentary snooping taking place). I have internet access, and have realized I couldn’t fill out that online questionnaire – versus being there in person – if I wanted to (and I do not, for valid reasons far to numerous to discuss here) because the only access I can afford is Dial Up (which I noted previously to you, which you appear to have forgotten, or not noted at all) which freezes up once one allows scripting etcetera. My Dial Up Access certainly does not accommodate [Real Time] Streaming, if I even wanted to do that – versus having a one on one, or more, conversation with other human beings.

I’m truly bemused that you think I’m being inconsiderate of your many concerns when I offer advice or suggestions (while referring you to staff) when you have repeatedly been advised your problems, questions and issues are outside my sphere as influence. As the saying goes, not my circus, not my monkeys. I have zero control over MTC, ABAG, PBA agendas, timing, location or transit access.

Since you find my suggestions “pathetic” “insulting” “tone deaf” and “stunningly offensive” (my personal favorite), I’m at a loss as to how I could possibly offer anything that would not result in more insults, vitriol and hysteria. I’ve tried to be helpful in the nicest way possible and would hate to think my inability to answer questions on things I’m not responsible for escalates any stress you endure because you are evidently already losing sleep.

To that end, I will repeat that your best bet for obtaining answers for any of the questions regarding MTC, ABAG, PBA (not my circus) is to contact the staff (not my monkeys) of those groups regarding all the questions about access, meetings, formats, etc. If you have any questions about what’s going on in the arena I do have some control over, feel free to ask.

> Since you find my suggestions “pathetic” “insulting” “tone deaf” and “stunningly offensive” (my personal favorite), I’m at a loss as to how I could possibly offer anything that would not result in more insults, vitriol and hysteria.

RANDI:

I would have proposed you as another candidate for eht SJI safe space, but I think that Kathleen is probably on her way there. For all I know, Kathleen and Diane may be going together.

Perhaps we should ask SJI to create another safe space or two. Maybe a multi-tenant safe space.

Thank you for your thoughts, but my concern is for (from what I can piece together) a senior citizen on limited income who has concerns, wants to participate in a public process and is becoming confused, frustrated and stressed. I’m sure once she contacts people who can actually help her, she’ll be doing better.

Now, if you can put a force field of some kind and create a fire and noise free safe space while my neighbors are determinedly setting off their cache of illegal fireworks (and why during the day?!?) I will gladly apply for that program.

If you had actually read my last comment carefully, Randi, you would have acknowledged that the only fault I actually laid on you was not acknowledging my point, a few days ago, about lack of internet access, (to respond to – let alone know about – online forums, etcetera). For just one example, does this comment I made today suggest that I’m calling you inconsiderate???????:

Not pointing at you, but addressing you – in your capacity as a public representative -when I note that it does not at all appear that the Public will get – nor have received to date – their proclaimed allotted time [1]. How can they, when it is utterly unclear as to when they should arrive and be allowed to sit down somewhere to receive their allotted time?

I think I fairly well clarified, in my last comment to you, that I was addressing you with issues (NOT BLAMING YOU FOR THEM) that you have the ability, as an MTC Santa Clara County Public Representative to most easily pass on to the muckety mucks of MTC, ABAG, and PBA.

If you find that so very difficult to do, versus punching down at those who are losing the roofs over their heads for no valid reason, then perhaps you should find another volunteer job, where you can more easily punch down at those you’re supposed to be representing when you know they have no ability to fight back without being made to look ungrateful.

I brought the Reserve Apartments issue to the attention of staff and muckety-mucks months ago. I wrote to the San Jose city council on their behalf. I have worked with a State Senator on this issue. I have made it an issue with Plan Bay Area staff. I have made sure that Dave Cortese (President of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Chair of MTC) was introduced to residents of the complex, knew the issue and was pleased to see his concern and commitment. I have met with public officials formally and informally and have alerted and enlisted people from the non-profit and advocacy groups. I have presented this at the PAC meeting and ensured correspondence from the tenants was on file for the meetings next week. This is an ongoing process.

I am sure, however, that I’ve missed people or groups you feel might be effective that aren’t already on my list of upcoming meetings. Please feel free to pass my name into them or their information to me and I will do my best. My contact info is publicly stored on the MTC website.

But, again, you’ve posed specific questions for which I have no answers and that are outside my scope of service. You can rest assured that I will be advising staff that you have many,many,many issues and concerns. But,again, not my circus and not my monkeys, so I do need to (again) suggest you contact staff if you want answers or some resolution to your many,many,many points of concern and friction over which I have no control.

Looking forward to making contact with people you feel I might need to chat with on this issue.

“This is an ongoing process.” – Yes, it is an ongoing process. The next rent-controlled building to be demolished is the Dudley apartments at Santana Row. There are 47 units there. Many people that live there have lived for over 10 years. There is no displacement policy for them either. This project has been approved. The timeline is a bit less certain right now, but the demolishment is imminent.

This is really about Agenda 21-ICLEI and the UN disguised by calling it, Envision San Jose 2040, One Bay Area with SPUR and ABAG. On a Global Scale, the idea is to drive most people off most of the land and cram them into extremely dense city-State zones. This situation isn’t going to get better. —The bottom line is the GLOBAL ELITE goals will be NO borders, they will collapse the economies of the world and will Microchip the survivors, because their other plan is to kill Billions of people and there will be NO Middle Class. The Global Elites will have all the wealth and the survivors will be nothing but Microchipped Slaves living a Hunger Games, Orwellian, Internet of Things, High surveillance Police state. Welcome to the New World Order run by Satan himself. Like I previously mentioned, there will be NO middle class either, so for those who are still in the Middle Class or even upper Middle Class, you can kiss that goodbye and this NWO also forbids Private Property, so bye bye, home ownership except for the Global Elites.

This is about Agenda 21-ICLEI and the UN. It’s a scheme cooked up the Global Elite and the UN to drive most people off most of the land and cram them into super high density, city-state zones and confine is there, hence the heavy emphasis on walkability, rising bikes and rail and using Driverless cars Also. The movie, the Hunger Gameszid about Agenda 21. Welcome to the NWO

What do you mean by cheap? Most people who are affected here pay over $2000 per month for rent. Check that nationally. Is that cheap?

By the way, do you expect all operations within the city to fund workers who rent at $2K+ per month? That’s not what’s happening now. I guess even working from further away, you might expect that they will continue driving to this lovely town?

Warning to anyone reading here who makes the mistake of taking any of the You Need To Leave The Place You’ve Lived in, Sizably – as a class of middle and lower income hard workers – Increased the GDP in, AND Paid Taxes Into For Decades™ folks seriously.

One of those folks suggested above, relocating to Dallas [Texas], ….No State Income Tax! (a favorite toss out among those who make sizeable amounts of money off of many times questionable endeavors as to providing any overwhelming good for society).

Those states which charge no State Income Tax, or, have a Flat Percentage State Income Tax Rate where everyone pays the same tax rate (Pennsylvania, for instance), are the most brutal (stunningly Regressive Tax Rates) on those not making large amounts of income; right along with states such as California which has allowed people to be so viciously displaced and tossed into homelessness.

> To make matters worse, the South Bay city of a million has no policy on the books to help tenants pay for the forced move.

This underscores one of the dirty secrets of “rent controlled’ housing, and government subsidized “affordable housing”.

It’s an economic trap for low income people.

It works just like the famed “Roach Motel”; people check in but they don’t check out.

The SCC property tax increase ballot measure on the November ballot (deceptively package as an “Affordable Housing Bond Measure”) proposes to create housing complexes where fifteen percent of the units will be “below market rate” and reserved for “low income” and “very low income” tenants.

Once a “very low income” tenant occupies their “below market rate” unit, where do the go from there?

Do they go to a “better” below market rate unit? Nope. Those are for the “homeless”.
Do they go to a (heaven forbid) “market rate’ unit. Nope. Those are for “rich people”. By definition, low income people can’t afford them.

Low income people are stuck in HIGH DENSITY housing, with a high population low income people, with no hope of moving to a better place.

High density housing in an urban location, with a high population of low income people, with no hope. Didn’t we used to call that a slum?

Dianne, and Kathleen, and Jill need to get down off of their moral high horses, check they’re overly big hearts into Real World Rehab, and ask themselves how they decided that they’re “good people” if what they are advocating is nothing more than to pushing “vulnerable” people into crowded, urban, slums.

And another thing that Dianne, Kathleen, and Jill need to ponder: what do they suppose is the quality of life and the crime rate in the crowded, high-density, low income warehouses that they seek to concentrate these people in, compared to — oh say — Pacific Heights where Dianne Feinstein lives, or Tiburon where Barbara Boxer lives?

Low income people are eager for improvement in their circumstances, including their living conditions, Most are, in fact, appropriately wary of the smiling con artists who want to give them “free things”. But too many are victimized by charlatans or morality narcissists who do not understand what is or isn’t helpful for people with many needs and limited choices.

What is there to debate here? It’s pretty simple. Silicon Valley real estate has been out of control and inflated for a long time…and it continues. Much of the responsibility for that can be laid at the feet of lobbyists such as the one referenced in this article, Erik Schoennauer who serves the cause of large real estate development interests in the valley. It’s crazy how back in the ’80s lobbyists were considered to be major culprits in the corruption of civic and governmental processes, among other things. Nowadays, people have been indoctrinated into rationalizing their existence in a mindless fashion. Lobbyists can only serve those with deep pockets so by virtue of their involvement in anything, it is a sign of corruption and underhanded, back-door agendas that serve to line the pockets of some already wealthy people. There are no two ways about it. That’s pretty much it. They exist to grease the wheels for those with substantial money. Damnit, come on already you twats. It’s not aeronautical engineering folks.

To the idiots who accuse the elderly of making ‘poor life decisions’ I can only say that you must be fools who have bought into this ‘modern’ pace of life where you don’t take care of your own family members and wash your hands of all responsibility to any other than #1. Older folks who grew up in a time when roots to the community meant something don’t deserve to be displaced just because these are the moronic times of anything goes bullshit. Social security wasn’t supposed to be stolen from, but your federal government has done it for years, and all the elderly that paid into it for decades have been ripped off as a result. I could go on and on, but the simpler view is that you’re fucking idiots who have far too high an opinion of your own viewpoints and need a major life event to shake you to the core. Then, maybe you wouldn’t be so smug in rationalizing the bs that you have. I will say that I’m damn glad that I moved out of that cancer ridden San Jose years ago…never been better than after leaving. Make the exodus, folks, it’s only going to get worse there.

No, what is happening is that there is too much demand and not enough supply, causing the prices to go sky high.

It works the other way too if there is an abundance of housing and shortage of people who want to live here. Prices drop like a rock, and if that’s the case, would you be on this forum complaining about the low cost of housing?

It seems to me, you’re the one who has a high opinion of your viewpoints and your view is the right view while everyone who disagrees with you has the wrong view.

I’m been living here since the early 60’s and I’ve seen the bay area go thru up and down economies. When business is good, prices go up. When business is bad, everyone is laying off and housing drops like a rock.

Bottom line is, we’re very happy you left San Jose too. It means the market works. People who don’t want or can’t afford to leave and make room for those who can afford to be here. With you out, you make room for those who want in. It’s how it’s suppose to work.

Just because you hated it here doesn’t mean the folks here hate it. We’re happy you’ve left to make space for others.

I was just now reading comments about the displacement of tenants. How can anyone say they are living beyond their means. There used to be a time where the city protected their citizens. Now its, oh well. Move out to Modesto or another central valley town. People are commuting 100 miles to work in San Jose. How could that be good for society? They are having to leave their families in the cheaper areas. Stay with friends or family in San Jose
so they don’t do that nasty commute everyday. How can that be good for society. Oh yea, they are living beyond their means. Oh please.